I've been working on this character for a little while, and now I'm almost complete with the high res. When I make my models, I first try and make them as low polygon as possible, then send them into ZBrush for detailing. I have not sent this character to ZBrush yet, but I am pretty much done with it in Maya.
But right now, instead of detailing it in ZBrush just yet, I'm making the low poly model for when I put it into Doom 3.
Here she is in polygon form un-smoothed:
Aurra:
Aurra's gun in holster:
Aurra head:
Aurra Sing is a character from Star Wars, she was in the movie (Episode 1) but only a very brief cameo (it lasted like two seconds). But she does have Comic books and I think she's in some novels.
There are a few minor accessories I have to make, which is pockets and stuff on her vest. But that's just too simple and it doesn't matter enough to make it real quick then post screens .
Anyway, hope you like!
kat@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:04 am :
Proportions are generally good, only crit is that her hands look a tad too small? Could do with being may 10-20% larger?
Tron@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:01 am :
I'd say you could probably do a lot less polys on that gun. Look forward to seeing this normal mapped.
Dinky@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 am :
Thanks for comments and critique!
@Kat - Yeah I kinda agree with you on the hands, I'd been thinking about modifying the hands, along with shaping the arms a little bit more before I do more work to the model. Now I think I will modify the hands since now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that area looks a little off.
@Tron - You're probably right in some places, but to be honest it doesn't really matter since it's not going to be included to the final low poly game model. But you should also note that I added a few lines in-case I were to take it into ZBrush with the rest of the model, I wouldn't want certain parts of the gun to get all smoothed and rounded when I divide the entire mesh. But I may not export it to ZBrush with the character, so I could just be wasting poly's like you said.
Last night I did a little bit of the low res mesh but I was a bit too busy and tired tonight to do anything so I'll just save it for tomorrow ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 pm :
dinky, good model so far and cool star wars character you've chosen to work with
I also was thinking her hands looked a little too small, and that a low poly gun could have a lot less polys. other then those I'm wondering if the polys between her crotch and her belt could be smoothed out more, as I think they look too angular at the moment, but maybe its the angle of the screen shot.
last year I started modeling a human male for the first time, and it was a lot harder then I imagined it would to be to get the proportions and edge loops looking right, even with lots of reference images, so I appreciate the work involved involved in modeling a human or non fantasy creature.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:17 am :
@ratty redemption - Yeah, Aurra Sing is one of my favorites . And that's NOT the low poly gun. That gun actually won't be used by the character either, it will just be normal mapped onto a low res version. And the crotch is actually made correctly, because when I divide it into a few million polies in ZBrush (or turn it into Sub-d's) it smooths out properly. If I were to make them straight, then it would just be flat. That area has to look "tucked in", which is what it does right now at the position those edges are.
Anyway, I got a low res completed today, and I put her in-game as a test model. No texture yet but I'll get to that last (after I normal map her). I'll just be texturing the low res, not the high res (though I know Doom 3's Renderbump can transfer textures from high res model to low res).
Here's the screenshot of her in my Doom 3 testing ground map (low res version). It's 2022 triangles, a little high but... Meh.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:57 pm :
Your model high-polycount VS low-polycount zones is a bit strange for me.
look:
In RED zones you put some extra polys to make little details that you will only see to a very close distance (distA), but in the YELLOW zone, you optimized your torso so much that you CAN'T come near to distA and still looking as good as red zones.
Here i think you must remove these extra polys in red zone to add these in the yellow one (to keep a good hips curve).
All these "clothes thickness" polys can be normalmapped without any problem.
That's just some ideas on how i would optimize this model, nothing obligatory of course!
Good luck on your model Dinky.
PS: Isn't "Aurra Sing" the girl character that player control in one of the Jedi Knight extansion?
Rayne@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:42 pm :
those polys are there probably to mantain good looking deformations at animation time.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:43 pm :
dinky, understood and cool
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:00 pm :
@6th Venom - I appreciate you adding your own comments and critique. But I'm aware of everything you just said. As Rayne said, those polies that I added at the knee/ankle/elbows/wrists/shoulders are for animation, and since the torso won't be as extensively animated as the limbs, and even if it is animated it will be subtle and it won't really matter since it's a rather thick part of the model.
If animation points like the elbows/shoulders/ankles/etc. don't get a few more poly's for animation then it will deform VERY unrealistically. But as for the "Jacket" or the "Vest" she's wearing, I am aware that could have been added through normal mapping, but I was afraid that maybe the character silhouette would look strange in-game. Besides, I've tried to normal map similar models in the same way you're talking about, and I got a ridiculously ugly result (or atleast IMO).
And as for Aurra Sing in the Jedi Knight games, I'm not sure. Do you mean Jedi Academy when you say "extansion [expansion?]"?? If you're saying Jedi Academy then no, because I don't EVER remember Aurra Sing in that game. And as far as I've known she's only been in one game, and that's some old N64 game.
And BTW, ratty redemption I'm lovin' your "ratty d3 hell map" wip! Looks great, keep it up.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:41 am :
I used to think modeling terrain was complicated but compared to character modeling, it's relatively straight forward. I also only experimented a little with animating my human model last year, but soon realized I should of built the model from the beginning with edge loops designed for animating, rather then just an acceptable looking static mesh, and as this would of taken more time and effort to fix I put that model on hold, until I had gained more practice with static meshes in blender.
ot: thanks a lot dinky, it's really encouraging to hear some of you guys are still interested in that project of mine, since I haven't worked on it for 3 months, although that was mainly due to moving home and having to use my girlfriends pc until mine was set up, but I'm pretty much back on track again
edit: dinky, would you mind editing the size of your images on this page, as it's forcing some of us to scroll sideways to read all the text. I'm using 1024 width desktop but used to be on 800 which I imagine would require even more side scrolling.
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:59 am :
@Dinky: I think it was the 1st Jedi knight's "expansion" ( ).
And for model itself, i understand that you need extra polies were there are huge deformations, but i'm still sure they are not "optimals", but whatever...
I love the idea to see more women in Doom.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:00 am :
Rezised.
I edited the "Aurra's Head" screenshot, since that was the only one I was having probs with. From now on I'll use ImageShack's thumbnail option. I can't change these to imageshack thumbnails since I don't have their upload page anymore (I should really register there). And I could make thumbnails, but I'm just too lazy. I hope that's good enough for your tiny resolution! I'm always either running 1920x1080, 1280x720 or 1280x1024.
If she was in Jedi Outcast (which is Jedi Knight 2) then I don't remember her, but I was like 12 or something when that game came out (though I did play it a little, I spent much more time on Raven Shield [Rainbow Six]). I'm 17 now (will be 18 later this year) ^_^.
As for my model and the "optimization", if you take a look at the doom guy behind Aurra, he certainly looks a lot higher poly than Aurra, or atleast to me he does. But bah, this model is still around the limit, and compared to the Quake 4 multiplayer Marine, she only has a few more polies than him, and that's probably because she has 5 fingers, not 3 like they do (10 counting the other hand). I HATE the Doom 3 and Quake 4 models, how they don't have individual fingers, it drives me crazy.
BTW, here's the link yet again to her WookiePedia in-case you missed it at the top (or just don't want to scroll back up and find it): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aurra_Sing
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:37 am :
ot: dinky, thanks. this is much easier to read now
imo guys like you and kit89 who is a similar age to you, are very lucky to get into games modding, and or 3d modeling at your age. I've just turned 38 and still have a lot to learn in some of these technical and artistic areas, but when you guys are learning and developing these skills at the rate you are, then by the time your in your mid to late 20's or 30`s you guys should be very skilled and experienced
I now find it difficult to comprehend how limited the computers we had when we were teen agers. one of the first computers I owned, being a 48kb sinclair spectrum, although at the time, home computers with color was ground breaking
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:31 am :
Yeah, young ones in the modding community isn't really TOO common, but it is becoming more common I think. The most important thing, in my opinion, to get younger kids into computer is to get them to play games on PCs rather than Consoles! PC Gaming opens up this whole new world for everyone, because there's not just an online gaming presence that's over a decade old, but there's also of course the amazing modding community. Eventually one thing will lead to another and the kid will soon be installing mods in their games instead of just the vanilla game. Then they'll think that's neat and want to do it themselve's.
But the only reason I got into computers and software like this at all is because of my father. When I was very young he got me into computers. And his first computer, I'm pretty sure was this one right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80. My Father and I are complete opposites though, he's a programmer and I'm an artist. And programming has to be the hardest thing I've ever tried to learn, it was the most difficult thing I had to face during web design was learning Actionscript (Macromedia Flash language). Anything to do with art though and I learn it pretty quick I think.
Oh and the first thing I got into wasn't modding though, it was web design. But I got interested in 3D after that (due to the movies.. I was like 14), THEN I got into modding games. But enough about me, I think PC Gaming is probably one of the best thing any young kid can get into, because it most likely will eventually lead to modding, which will lead to the desire to make mods .
Ok I just realized I sound like Yoda...
Quote:
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 am :
ot: understood and agreed, pc gaming is very important if new people are going to get into the modding scene, that is unless consoles catch up with pc's in the editing software etc.
I've also dabbled a little in coding with the d3 engine, but like you I'm more of an artist so didn't find coding to feel a natural process for me. I also think I'm more at home working with 3d then 2d although I've been working with the latter for decades.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:36 am :
Well I sort-of halfway forgot to make her vest accessories. I didn't really forget.. I kinda just... Skipped it for moment.
Anyway, I did all the front pockets n' stuff, now I just have to do the thing that's on her back, which really isn't all that big of a deal, I won't post it like I am posting these.
All the models are in Sub-D's, which is why they look so smooth ^_^:
For references on the vest (and the entire character), I used Aurra Sing's WookiePedia page and her comic books that I bought for even more reference (she doesn't have many live action photos or concepts to go from).
EDIT: I did some minor modifications to the sides of the lower pockets, so please don't make any critique to the sides of those two pockets at the bottum. You still can critique the lower pockets, just not the sides... heheh... I'm a perfectionist...
EDIT 2: I also forgot to mention one thing! The reason why all the accessories are floating away from her vest is because when the high res model is normal mapped onto the low res model, those models will no longer exist, and they will only appear as a normal map ON the character. So it gives the illusion that the accessories and stuff is actually on the vest, when in actuality, on the high res character, it wasn't... It was floating above it. Pretty cool, and gives modelers a lot less work ^_^.
Dinky@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:39 am :
I've been working on this character for a little while, and now I'm almost complete with the high res. When I make my models, I first try and make them as low polygon as possible, then send them into ZBrush for detailing. I have not sent this character to ZBrush yet, but I am pretty much done with it in Maya.
But right now, instead of detailing it in ZBrush just yet, I'm making the low poly model for when I put it into Doom 3.
Here she is in polygon form un-smoothed:
Aurra:
Aurra's gun in holster:
Aurra head:
Aurra Sing is a character from Star Wars, she was in the movie (Episode 1) but only a very brief cameo (it lasted like two seconds). But she does have Comic books and I think she's in some novels.
There are a few minor accessories I have to make, which is pockets and stuff on her vest. But that's just too simple and it doesn't matter enough to make it real quick then post screens .
Anyway, hope you like!
kat@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:04 am :
Proportions are generally good, only crit is that her hands look a tad too small? Could do with being may 10-20% larger?
Tron@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:01 am :
I'd say you could probably do a lot less polys on that gun. Look forward to seeing this normal mapped.
Dinky@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 am :
Thanks for comments and critique!
@Kat - Yeah I kinda agree with you on the hands, I'd been thinking about modifying the hands, along with shaping the arms a little bit more before I do more work to the model. Now I think I will modify the hands since now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that area looks a little off.
@Tron - You're probably right in some places, but to be honest it doesn't really matter since it's not going to be included to the final low poly game model. But you should also note that I added a few lines in-case I were to take it into ZBrush with the rest of the model, I wouldn't want certain parts of the gun to get all smoothed and rounded when I divide the entire mesh. But I may not export it to ZBrush with the character, so I could just be wasting poly's like you said.
Last night I did a little bit of the low res mesh but I was a bit too busy and tired tonight to do anything so I'll just save it for tomorrow ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 pm :
dinky, good model so far and cool star wars character you've chosen to work with
I also was thinking her hands looked a little too small, and that a low poly gun could have a lot less polys. other then those I'm wondering if the polys between her crotch and her belt could be smoothed out more, as I think they look too angular at the moment, but maybe its the angle of the screen shot.
last year I started modeling a human male for the first time, and it was a lot harder then I imagined it would to be to get the proportions and edge loops looking right, even with lots of reference images, so I appreciate the work involved involved in modeling a human or non fantasy creature.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:17 am :
@ratty redemption - Yeah, Aurra Sing is one of my favorites . And that's NOT the low poly gun. That gun actually won't be used by the character either, it will just be normal mapped onto a low res version. And the crotch is actually made correctly, because when I divide it into a few million polies in ZBrush (or turn it into Sub-d's) it smooths out properly. If I were to make them straight, then it would just be flat. That area has to look "tucked in", which is what it does right now at the position those edges are.
Anyway, I got a low res completed today, and I put her in-game as a test model. No texture yet but I'll get to that last (after I normal map her). I'll just be texturing the low res, not the high res (though I know Doom 3's Renderbump can transfer textures from high res model to low res).
Here's the screenshot of her in my Doom 3 testing ground map (low res version). It's 2022 triangles, a little high but... Meh.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:57 pm :
Your model high-polycount VS low-polycount zones is a bit strange for me.
look:
In RED zones you put some extra polys to make little details that you will only see to a very close distance (distA), but in the YELLOW zone, you optimized your torso so much that you CAN'T come near to distA and still looking as good as red zones.
Here i think you must remove these extra polys in red zone to add these in the yellow one (to keep a good hips curve).
All these "clothes thickness" polys can be normalmapped without any problem.
That's just some ideas on how i would optimize this model, nothing obligatory of course!
Good luck on your model Dinky.
PS: Isn't "Aurra Sing" the girl character that player control in one of the Jedi Knight extansion?
Rayne@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:42 pm :
those polys are there probably to mantain good looking deformations at animation time.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:43 pm :
dinky, understood and cool
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:00 pm :
@6th Venom - I appreciate you adding your own comments and critique. But I'm aware of everything you just said. As Rayne said, those polies that I added at the knee/ankle/elbows/wrists/shoulders are for animation, and since the torso won't be as extensively animated as the limbs, and even if it is animated it will be subtle and it won't really matter since it's a rather thick part of the model.
If animation points like the elbows/shoulders/ankles/etc. don't get a few more poly's for animation then it will deform VERY unrealistically. But as for the "Jacket" or the "Vest" she's wearing, I am aware that could have been added through normal mapping, but I was afraid that maybe the character silhouette would look strange in-game. Besides, I've tried to normal map similar models in the same way you're talking about, and I got a ridiculously ugly result (or atleast IMO).
And as for Aurra Sing in the Jedi Knight games, I'm not sure. Do you mean Jedi Academy when you say "extansion [expansion?]"?? If you're saying Jedi Academy then no, because I don't EVER remember Aurra Sing in that game. And as far as I've known she's only been in one game, and that's some old N64 game.
And BTW, ratty redemption I'm lovin' your "ratty d3 hell map" wip! Looks great, keep it up.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:41 am :
I used to think modeling terrain was complicated but compared to character modeling, it's relatively straight forward. I also only experimented a little with animating my human model last year, but soon realized I should of built the model from the beginning with edge loops designed for animating, rather then just an acceptable looking static mesh, and as this would of taken more time and effort to fix I put that model on hold, until I had gained more practice with static meshes in blender.
ot: thanks a lot dinky, it's really encouraging to hear some of you guys are still interested in that project of mine, since I haven't worked on it for 3 months, although that was mainly due to moving home and having to use my girlfriends pc until mine was set up, but I'm pretty much back on track again
edit: dinky, would you mind editing the size of your images on this page, as it's forcing some of us to scroll sideways to read all the text. I'm using 1024 width desktop but used to be on 800 which I imagine would require even more side scrolling.
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:59 am :
@Dinky: I think it was the 1st Jedi knight's "expansion" ( ).
And for model itself, i understand that you need extra polies were there are huge deformations, but i'm still sure they are not "optimals", but whatever...
I love the idea to see more women in Doom.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:00 am :
Rezised.
I edited the "Aurra's Head" screenshot, since that was the only one I was having probs with. From now on I'll use ImageShack's thumbnail option. I can't change these to imageshack thumbnails since I don't have their upload page anymore (I should really register there). And I could make thumbnails, but I'm just too lazy. I hope that's good enough for your tiny resolution! I'm always either running 1920x1080, 1280x720 or 1280x1024.
If she was in Jedi Outcast (which is Jedi Knight 2) then I don't remember her, but I was like 12 or something when that game came out (though I did play it a little, I spent much more time on Raven Shield [Rainbow Six]). I'm 17 now (will be 18 later this year) ^_^.
As for my model and the "optimization", if you take a look at the doom guy behind Aurra, he certainly looks a lot higher poly than Aurra, or atleast to me he does. But bah, this model is still around the limit, and compared to the Quake 4 multiplayer Marine, she only has a few more polies than him, and that's probably because she has 5 fingers, not 3 like they do (10 counting the other hand). I HATE the Doom 3 and Quake 4 models, how they don't have individual fingers, it drives me crazy.
BTW, here's the link yet again to her WookiePedia in-case you missed it at the top (or just don't want to scroll back up and find it): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aurra_Sing
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:37 am :
ot: dinky, thanks. this is much easier to read now
imo guys like you and kit89 who is a similar age to you, are very lucky to get into games modding, and or 3d modeling at your age. I've just turned 38 and still have a lot to learn in some of these technical and artistic areas, but when you guys are learning and developing these skills at the rate you are, then by the time your in your mid to late 20's or 30`s you guys should be very skilled and experienced
I now find it difficult to comprehend how limited the computers we had when we were teen agers. one of the first computers I owned, being a 48kb sinclair spectrum, although at the time, home computers with color was ground breaking
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:31 am :
Yeah, young ones in the modding community isn't really TOO common, but it is becoming more common I think. The most important thing, in my opinion, to get younger kids into computer is to get them to play games on PCs rather than Consoles! PC Gaming opens up this whole new world for everyone, because there's not just an online gaming presence that's over a decade old, but there's also of course the amazing modding community. Eventually one thing will lead to another and the kid will soon be installing mods in their games instead of just the vanilla game. Then they'll think that's neat and want to do it themselve's.
But the only reason I got into computers and software like this at all is because of my father. When I was very young he got me into computers. And his first computer, I'm pretty sure was this one right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80. My Father and I are complete opposites though, he's a programmer and I'm an artist. And programming has to be the hardest thing I've ever tried to learn, it was the most difficult thing I had to face during web design was learning Actionscript (Macromedia Flash language). Anything to do with art though and I learn it pretty quick I think.
Oh and the first thing I got into wasn't modding though, it was web design. But I got interested in 3D after that (due to the movies.. I was like 14), THEN I got into modding games. But enough about me, I think PC Gaming is probably one of the best thing any young kid can get into, because it most likely will eventually lead to modding, which will lead to the desire to make mods .
Ok I just realized I sound like Yoda...
Quote:
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 am :
ot: understood and agreed, pc gaming is very important if new people are going to get into the modding scene, that is unless consoles catch up with pc's in the editing software etc.
I've also dabbled a little in coding with the d3 engine, but like you I'm more of an artist so didn't find coding to feel a natural process for me. I also think I'm more at home working with 3d then 2d although I've been working with the latter for decades.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:36 am :
Well I sort-of halfway forgot to make her vest accessories. I didn't really forget.. I kinda just... Skipped it for moment.
Anyway, I did all the front pockets n' stuff, now I just have to do the thing that's on her back, which really isn't all that big of a deal, I won't post it like I am posting these.
All the models are in Sub-D's, which is why they look so smooth ^_^:
For references on the vest (and the entire character), I used Aurra Sing's WookiePedia page and her comic books that I bought for even more reference (she doesn't have many live action photos or concepts to go from).
EDIT: I did some minor modifications to the sides of the lower pockets, so please don't make any critique to the sides of those two pockets at the bottum. You still can critique the lower pockets, just not the sides... heheh... I'm a perfectionist...
EDIT 2: I also forgot to mention one thing! The reason why all the accessories are floating away from her vest is because when the high res model is normal mapped onto the low res model, those models will no longer exist, and they will only appear as a normal map ON the character. So it gives the illusion that the accessories and stuff is actually on the vest, when in actuality, on the high res character, it wasn't... It was floating above it. Pretty cool, and gives modelers a lot less work ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:09 am :
cool and nice collar bone modeling. I found muscle structure and bones visible under the skin to be two of the hardest things to model, I didn't even get as far as you have with this model, but maybe I'll try again one day with blender's new sculpt (z brush inspired) tool.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:18 pm :
I actually never used Maya's sculting tool. Good work can be done with it, but only when you have a higher polycount than I do on my high res version of Aurra Sing. Besides, I just prefer ZBrush's sculpting tools, it really feels like you're working with clay in ZBrush, and their tools are just so much better than any other software that I've used for sculpting.
The two software that I know a lot of people say are great for sculpting is ZBrush (the one I use) and MudBox (I've never used MudBox though).
The way I model characters in Maya is I start from a single polygon face, and I extrude edge by edge until I complete my model. So basically, I model my characters polygon by polygon, in my opinion, it's the best way to model a character although it's probably the most time consuming.
Also, getting bone and muscle (anatomical) structure to appear realistic is best achieved when you first start with splitting edges and getting the geometry to flow in the proper direction. For example, if you want to create a thigh muscle, you create rings of split edges around the correct area, then move the poly's around to get the proper look, then once you complete the desired effect you divide the mesh until you get a good polygon count, THEN you sculpt it out to make it more realistic.
Err atleast, that's my procedure. But now that I've completed EVERYTHING that I needed to do with high res Aurra Sing in Maya, my next step is to take her into ZBrush and detail her. After that it's Doom 3 renderbump time ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:37 pm :
understood and if I could afford it, I would probably get zbrush, but us blender users are really pleased a zbrush like sculpt tool is being coded into blender, even if its not as easy to use or powerful as zbrush.
like yourself I sometimes model polygon by polygon, other times I've used box modeling, which as you know is similar in that it involves a lot of extruding.
I've also started with a single face and sub divided it several times, then dragged the verts to form a basic terrain mesh. I don't think I could just use one method, although I know some are faster to work with then others.
Rayne@Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:00 pm :
When your normal map looks inverted you have to invert the Green channel of your normal map image. Just open it in photoshop, select the green channel and press Ctrl + I .
Sometimes you have to invert the red channel (if I remeber correctly), but the point is: every program creates normal maps in its own way, so you have to know which type of normal map your engine likes.
Let's do some examples:
DooM3 uses the sometimes called "ATi style normal maps", which have the green channel inverted in respect of Maya and Max normal maps.
Basically, to use a DooM3 created normal map in Maya, you have to invert the green channel of the image. Same thing, if you create a normal map in Maya, to use it in DooM3, you have to invert the green channel.
With this small info, it's really easy to work with normals: whatever your engine is, if your normal map looks inverted just open it in photoshop
But, that's not enough: You are using XNormal, and that's the best choice you can do with the hassle of creating normal maps: quick, simple to use, and it creates the best normal maps (it's second only to DooM integrated renderbump). In XNormal (like in Zbrush) you can choose, in the normal map tab, which channel you want inverted or not in your image file.
Ps: the problem in your last post seems like a UV problem; may you post your uv layout?
obihb@Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:46 pm :
Renderbump is not too difficult to use, once you get how it works.
I haven't used it for a very long time but here is as I remember it. If I miss something, I'm sorry in advance. But this should be pretty much how it works.
Export both low and high poly to .ase or .lwo file. They must occupy the same space. You must export normals and UV info. Although UV is only used for the low poly.
Put both exported models in base/models
This location is not mandatory, so feel free to use your own location.
Make sure you have a Doom material that actually works for the low poly model. If the material does not work the renderbump will not work.
... to your material. This is the info to create the proper normal map and reference the high poly model.
I recommend to run Doom in windowed mode before rendering the map. The size there is the size of the map it saves out. The "aa" is anti-aliasing and I'll suggest to make it 0 for testing purpose to speed it up. Once you get a good result you can push it up for final renders. The trace is the distance it will trace for high poly normals. Tweak this if you are missing some normals or get some overlaps of close geometry. The next line is the file name of the TGA it'll save and the last bit is the reference to the high poly model
So then inside Doom you bring down the console and type..
renderbump models/lowpoly.ase
This of course needs to point to your low poly model. You can use TAB to just quickly pick through. I'm sure you know the TAB shortcut in the Doom console.
So that is pretty much it.
Main things are to have proper exports. Just to be safe you can keep them scaled in game dimensions. So it's not like super huge or really tiny. And of course the material has to work. I know lots of people struggle with that, not using material names correctly and so on.
I hope this is helpful and I didn't miss something important..
modern@Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:05 am :
Sometimes normal maps in the real-time preview in Max look fubard just like that. It can be a glitch in the preview that occurs when it does not update correctly, and can be fixed by turning the DX material preview off, and then back on. I find using DX material previews often crashes Max. It could be just as buggy in Maya. I would worry about what the normal map looks like in Doom, and dont pay too much attention to how it appears in Maya.
Dinky@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:39 am :
I've been working on this character for a little while, and now I'm almost complete with the high res. When I make my models, I first try and make them as low polygon as possible, then send them into ZBrush for detailing. I have not sent this character to ZBrush yet, but I am pretty much done with it in Maya.
But right now, instead of detailing it in ZBrush just yet, I'm making the low poly model for when I put it into Doom 3.
Here she is in polygon form un-smoothed:
Aurra:
Aurra's gun in holster:
Aurra head:
Aurra Sing is a character from Star Wars, she was in the movie (Episode 1) but only a very brief cameo (it lasted like two seconds). But she does have Comic books and I think she's in some novels.
There are a few minor accessories I have to make, which is pockets and stuff on her vest. But that's just too simple and it doesn't matter enough to make it real quick then post screens .
Anyway, hope you like!
kat@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:04 am :
Proportions are generally good, only crit is that her hands look a tad too small? Could do with being may 10-20% larger?
Tron@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:01 am :
I'd say you could probably do a lot less polys on that gun. Look forward to seeing this normal mapped.
Dinky@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 am :
Thanks for comments and critique!
@Kat - Yeah I kinda agree with you on the hands, I'd been thinking about modifying the hands, along with shaping the arms a little bit more before I do more work to the model. Now I think I will modify the hands since now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that area looks a little off.
@Tron - You're probably right in some places, but to be honest it doesn't really matter since it's not going to be included to the final low poly game model. But you should also note that I added a few lines in-case I were to take it into ZBrush with the rest of the model, I wouldn't want certain parts of the gun to get all smoothed and rounded when I divide the entire mesh. But I may not export it to ZBrush with the character, so I could just be wasting poly's like you said.
Last night I did a little bit of the low res mesh but I was a bit too busy and tired tonight to do anything so I'll just save it for tomorrow ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 pm :
dinky, good model so far and cool star wars character you've chosen to work with
I also was thinking her hands looked a little too small, and that a low poly gun could have a lot less polys. other then those I'm wondering if the polys between her crotch and her belt could be smoothed out more, as I think they look too angular at the moment, but maybe its the angle of the screen shot.
last year I started modeling a human male for the first time, and it was a lot harder then I imagined it would to be to get the proportions and edge loops looking right, even with lots of reference images, so I appreciate the work involved involved in modeling a human or non fantasy creature.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:17 am :
@ratty redemption - Yeah, Aurra Sing is one of my favorites . And that's NOT the low poly gun. That gun actually won't be used by the character either, it will just be normal mapped onto a low res version. And the crotch is actually made correctly, because when I divide it into a few million polies in ZBrush (or turn it into Sub-d's) it smooths out properly. If I were to make them straight, then it would just be flat. That area has to look "tucked in", which is what it does right now at the position those edges are.
Anyway, I got a low res completed today, and I put her in-game as a test model. No texture yet but I'll get to that last (after I normal map her). I'll just be texturing the low res, not the high res (though I know Doom 3's Renderbump can transfer textures from high res model to low res).
Here's the screenshot of her in my Doom 3 testing ground map (low res version). It's 2022 triangles, a little high but... Meh.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:57 pm :
Your model high-polycount VS low-polycount zones is a bit strange for me.
look:
In RED zones you put some extra polys to make little details that you will only see to a very close distance (distA), but in the YELLOW zone, you optimized your torso so much that you CAN'T come near to distA and still looking as good as red zones.
Here i think you must remove these extra polys in red zone to add these in the yellow one (to keep a good hips curve).
All these "clothes thickness" polys can be normalmapped without any problem.
That's just some ideas on how i would optimize this model, nothing obligatory of course!
Good luck on your model Dinky.
PS: Isn't "Aurra Sing" the girl character that player control in one of the Jedi Knight extansion?
Rayne@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:42 pm :
those polys are there probably to mantain good looking deformations at animation time.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:43 pm :
dinky, understood and cool
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:00 pm :
@6th Venom - I appreciate you adding your own comments and critique. But I'm aware of everything you just said. As Rayne said, those polies that I added at the knee/ankle/elbows/wrists/shoulders are for animation, and since the torso won't be as extensively animated as the limbs, and even if it is animated it will be subtle and it won't really matter since it's a rather thick part of the model.
If animation points like the elbows/shoulders/ankles/etc. don't get a few more poly's for animation then it will deform VERY unrealistically. But as for the "Jacket" or the "Vest" she's wearing, I am aware that could have been added through normal mapping, but I was afraid that maybe the character silhouette would look strange in-game. Besides, I've tried to normal map similar models in the same way you're talking about, and I got a ridiculously ugly result (or atleast IMO).
And as for Aurra Sing in the Jedi Knight games, I'm not sure. Do you mean Jedi Academy when you say "extansion [expansion?]"?? If you're saying Jedi Academy then no, because I don't EVER remember Aurra Sing in that game. And as far as I've known she's only been in one game, and that's some old N64 game.
And BTW, ratty redemption I'm lovin' your "ratty d3 hell map" wip! Looks great, keep it up.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:41 am :
I used to think modeling terrain was complicated but compared to character modeling, it's relatively straight forward. I also only experimented a little with animating my human model last year, but soon realized I should of built the model from the beginning with edge loops designed for animating, rather then just an acceptable looking static mesh, and as this would of taken more time and effort to fix I put that model on hold, until I had gained more practice with static meshes in blender.
ot: thanks a lot dinky, it's really encouraging to hear some of you guys are still interested in that project of mine, since I haven't worked on it for 3 months, although that was mainly due to moving home and having to use my girlfriends pc until mine was set up, but I'm pretty much back on track again
edit: dinky, would you mind editing the size of your images on this page, as it's forcing some of us to scroll sideways to read all the text. I'm using 1024 width desktop but used to be on 800 which I imagine would require even more side scrolling.
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:59 am :
@Dinky: I think it was the 1st Jedi knight's "expansion" ( ).
And for model itself, i understand that you need extra polies were there are huge deformations, but i'm still sure they are not "optimals", but whatever...
I love the idea to see more women in Doom.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:00 am :
Rezised.
I edited the "Aurra's Head" screenshot, since that was the only one I was having probs with. From now on I'll use ImageShack's thumbnail option. I can't change these to imageshack thumbnails since I don't have their upload page anymore (I should really register there). And I could make thumbnails, but I'm just too lazy. I hope that's good enough for your tiny resolution! I'm always either running 1920x1080, 1280x720 or 1280x1024.
If she was in Jedi Outcast (which is Jedi Knight 2) then I don't remember her, but I was like 12 or something when that game came out (though I did play it a little, I spent much more time on Raven Shield [Rainbow Six]). I'm 17 now (will be 18 later this year) ^_^.
As for my model and the "optimization", if you take a look at the doom guy behind Aurra, he certainly looks a lot higher poly than Aurra, or atleast to me he does. But bah, this model is still around the limit, and compared to the Quake 4 multiplayer Marine, she only has a few more polies than him, and that's probably because she has 5 fingers, not 3 like they do (10 counting the other hand). I HATE the Doom 3 and Quake 4 models, how they don't have individual fingers, it drives me crazy.
BTW, here's the link yet again to her WookiePedia in-case you missed it at the top (or just don't want to scroll back up and find it): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aurra_Sing
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:37 am :
ot: dinky, thanks. this is much easier to read now
imo guys like you and kit89 who is a similar age to you, are very lucky to get into games modding, and or 3d modeling at your age. I've just turned 38 and still have a lot to learn in some of these technical and artistic areas, but when you guys are learning and developing these skills at the rate you are, then by the time your in your mid to late 20's or 30`s you guys should be very skilled and experienced
I now find it difficult to comprehend how limited the computers we had when we were teen agers. one of the first computers I owned, being a 48kb sinclair spectrum, although at the time, home computers with color was ground breaking
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:31 am :
Yeah, young ones in the modding community isn't really TOO common, but it is becoming more common I think. The most important thing, in my opinion, to get younger kids into computer is to get them to play games on PCs rather than Consoles! PC Gaming opens up this whole new world for everyone, because there's not just an online gaming presence that's over a decade old, but there's also of course the amazing modding community. Eventually one thing will lead to another and the kid will soon be installing mods in their games instead of just the vanilla game. Then they'll think that's neat and want to do it themselve's.
But the only reason I got into computers and software like this at all is because of my father. When I was very young he got me into computers. And his first computer, I'm pretty sure was this one right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80. My Father and I are complete opposites though, he's a programmer and I'm an artist. And programming has to be the hardest thing I've ever tried to learn, it was the most difficult thing I had to face during web design was learning Actionscript (Macromedia Flash language). Anything to do with art though and I learn it pretty quick I think.
Oh and the first thing I got into wasn't modding though, it was web design. But I got interested in 3D after that (due to the movies.. I was like 14), THEN I got into modding games. But enough about me, I think PC Gaming is probably one of the best thing any young kid can get into, because it most likely will eventually lead to modding, which will lead to the desire to make mods .
Ok I just realized I sound like Yoda...
Quote:
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 am :
ot: understood and agreed, pc gaming is very important if new people are going to get into the modding scene, that is unless consoles catch up with pc's in the editing software etc.
I've also dabbled a little in coding with the d3 engine, but like you I'm more of an artist so didn't find coding to feel a natural process for me. I also think I'm more at home working with 3d then 2d although I've been working with the latter for decades.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:36 am :
Well I sort-of halfway forgot to make her vest accessories. I didn't really forget.. I kinda just... Skipped it for moment.
Anyway, I did all the front pockets n' stuff, now I just have to do the thing that's on her back, which really isn't all that big of a deal, I won't post it like I am posting these.
All the models are in Sub-D's, which is why they look so smooth ^_^:
For references on the vest (and the entire character), I used Aurra Sing's WookiePedia page and her comic books that I bought for even more reference (she doesn't have many live action photos or concepts to go from).
EDIT: I did some minor modifications to the sides of the lower pockets, so please don't make any critique to the sides of those two pockets at the bottum. You still can critique the lower pockets, just not the sides... heheh... I'm a perfectionist...
EDIT 2: I also forgot to mention one thing! The reason why all the accessories are floating away from her vest is because when the high res model is normal mapped onto the low res model, those models will no longer exist, and they will only appear as a normal map ON the character. So it gives the illusion that the accessories and stuff is actually on the vest, when in actuality, on the high res character, it wasn't... It was floating above it. Pretty cool, and gives modelers a lot less work ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:09 am :
cool and nice collar bone modeling. I found muscle structure and bones visible under the skin to be two of the hardest things to model, I didn't even get as far as you have with this model, but maybe I'll try again one day with blender's new sculpt (z brush inspired) tool.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:18 pm :
I actually never used Maya's sculting tool. Good work can be done with it, but only when you have a higher polycount than I do on my high res version of Aurra Sing. Besides, I just prefer ZBrush's sculpting tools, it really feels like you're working with clay in ZBrush, and their tools are just so much better than any other software that I've used for sculpting.
The two software that I know a lot of people say are great for sculpting is ZBrush (the one I use) and MudBox (I've never used MudBox though).
The way I model characters in Maya is I start from a single polygon face, and I extrude edge by edge until I complete my model. So basically, I model my characters polygon by polygon, in my opinion, it's the best way to model a character although it's probably the most time consuming.
Also, getting bone and muscle (anatomical) structure to appear realistic is best achieved when you first start with splitting edges and getting the geometry to flow in the proper direction. For example, if you want to create a thigh muscle, you create rings of split edges around the correct area, then move the poly's around to get the proper look, then once you complete the desired effect you divide the mesh until you get a good polygon count, THEN you sculpt it out to make it more realistic.
Err atleast, that's my procedure. But now that I've completed EVERYTHING that I needed to do with high res Aurra Sing in Maya, my next step is to take her into ZBrush and detail her. After that it's Doom 3 renderbump time ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:37 pm :
understood and if I could afford it, I would probably get zbrush, but us blender users are really pleased a zbrush like sculpt tool is being coded into blender, even if its not as easy to use or powerful as zbrush.
like yourself I sometimes model polygon by polygon, other times I've used box modeling, which as you know is similar in that it involves a lot of extruding.
I've also started with a single face and sub divided it several times, then dragged the verts to form a basic terrain mesh. I don't think I could just use one method, although I know some are faster to work with then others.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:32 am :
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Still WIP!
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:45 am :
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:05 am :
wow, that's looking considerably better then the lower poly versions, although they were good
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:40 am :
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:58 am :
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
modern@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:11 pm :
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:59 pm :
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:07 pm :
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
kit89@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:49 pm :
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:18 pm :
kit89 wrote:
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
Dinky@Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:09 am :
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:06 am :
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Tron@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:05 am :
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:26 am :
Tron wrote:
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:08 am :
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Tron@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:09 am :
How about you give us more information, post a screenshot of exactly how the normal map isn't appearing right? It's likely just some simple error so should be easy to fix, unless you are doing something totally wrong in regards to the model.
I've used the RenderBump feature before and it worked fine.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:22 am :
Well, right now I'm trying to use xnormal to make my normal maps, and after taking some time out and looking at some things I've discovered cages. I've heard of them before in ZBrush, but I've never had to bother with them. Now this is supposed to make it so that rays have an easier time measuring distance between the high poly and the low poly model. But when I tried to use it with a section of my model (high res and low res), it pretty much only sat there and did nothing (after a few procedures within the software).
It may have something to do with the model, as it's over a mill in poly's. Now I've actually cut my model up into pieces for detailing in ZBrush. Arms cut off, vest cut off, etc. All the limbs n' stuff are individual pieces right now, it's easier to work that way.
As for Doom 3's Renderbump, I've only seen a few tutorials and none of them really helped me, mostly because they completely differed from eachother and they didn't describe it step by step too well, so I kinda got lost. The only tut's n' stuff that I can find that explain well are talking about renderbumpflat (for high polygon walls n' stuff, not characters). I don't know if there's much of a difference, but nothing worked for me. It would be nice if I could find a GOOD tutorial somewhere.
And I would post a screenshot but right now I'm trying a bunch of things with XNormals and doing it the way I am right now, like I said, it's not even generating the normal maps anymore. You'd be helping me out by linking me to some renderbump tutorials though, because I don't know much about it, other than it can transfer geometry information and color from a high poly to a low poly (duh).
EDIT: Oh and the model should be squared away. UV Map is correct and clean, normals are facing out blah blah blah. Everything should work =/.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:17 pm :
glad to hear your persevering with this project dinky, despite the technical problems you've run into. anyway good luck and please keep us updated.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:20 am :
Well here it is. I've pretty much tried everything, but it just seems that there's nothing I can do to make it work right. Atleast with the XNormals program.
-Rendered with Maya Software engine.
Among many other problems, it looks like the knees are going IN, instead of out, but I think I may know why this is. I think using XNormals may be one of my problems, I just don't know much about using it. The only normal map creation expierence I have is with ZBrush, and that's for just for the base mesh of a high polygon model, not a high polygon model to a seperate low polygon model, as far as I know you can't do that in ZBrush.
A good D3 Renderbump walkthrough would be a project saver. But right now I'm stumped, there's nothing that I can think of that I haven't tried.
Rayne@Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:00 pm :
When your normal map looks inverted you have to invert the Green channel of your normal map image. Just open it in photoshop, select the green channel and press Ctrl + I .
Sometimes you have to invert the red channel (if I remeber correctly), but the point is: every program creates normal maps in its own way, so you have to know which type of normal map your engine likes.
Let's do some examples:
DooM3 uses the sometimes called "ATi style normal maps", which have the green channel inverted in respect of Maya and Max normal maps.
Basically, to use a DooM3 created normal map in Maya, you have to invert the green channel of the image. Same thing, if you create a normal map in Maya, to use it in DooM3, you have to invert the green channel.
With this small info, it's really easy to work with normals: whatever your engine is, if your normal map looks inverted just open it in photoshop
But, that's not enough: You are using XNormal, and that's the best choice you can do with the hassle of creating normal maps: quick, simple to use, and it creates the best normal maps (it's second only to DooM integrated renderbump). In XNormal (like in Zbrush) you can choose, in the normal map tab, which channel you want inverted or not in your image file.
Ps: the problem in your last post seems like a UV problem; may you post your uv layout?
obihb@Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:46 pm :
Renderbump is not too difficult to use, once you get how it works.
I haven't used it for a very long time but here is as I remember it. If I miss something, I'm sorry in advance. But this should be pretty much how it works.
Export both low and high poly to .ase or .lwo file. They must occupy the same space. You must export normals and UV info. Although UV is only used for the low poly.
Put both exported models in base/models
This location is not mandatory, so feel free to use your own location.
Make sure you have a Doom material that actually works for the low poly model. If the material does not work the renderbump will not work.
... to your material. This is the info to create the proper normal map and reference the high poly model.
I recommend to run Doom in windowed mode before rendering the map. The size there is the size of the map it saves out. The "aa" is anti-aliasing and I'll suggest to make it 0 for testing purpose to speed it up. Once you get a good result you can push it up for final renders. The trace is the distance it will trace for high poly normals. Tweak this if you are missing some normals or get some overlaps of close geometry. The next line is the file name of the TGA it'll save and the last bit is the reference to the high poly model
So then inside Doom you bring down the console and type..
renderbump models/lowpoly.ase
This of course needs to point to your low poly model. You can use TAB to just quickly pick through. I'm sure you know the TAB shortcut in the Doom console.
So that is pretty much it.
Main things are to have proper exports. Just to be safe you can keep them scaled in game dimensions. So it's not like super huge or really tiny. And of course the material has to work. I know lots of people struggle with that, not using material names correctly and so on.
I hope this is helpful and I didn't miss something important..
modern@Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:05 am :
Sometimes normal maps in the real-time preview in Max look fubard just like that. It can be a glitch in the preview that occurs when it does not update correctly, and can be fixed by turning the DX material preview off, and then back on. I find using DX material previews often crashes Max. It could be just as buggy in Maya. I would worry about what the normal map looks like in Doom, and dont pay too much attention to how it appears in Maya.
Rayne@Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:00 pm :
When your normal map looks inverted you have to invert the Green channel of your normal map image. Just open it in photoshop, select the green channel and press Ctrl + I .
Sometimes you have to invert the red channel (if I remeber correctly), but the point is: every program creates normal maps in its own way, so you have to know which type of normal map your engine likes.
Let's do some examples:
DooM3 uses the sometimes called "ATi style normal maps", which have the green channel inverted in respect of Maya and Max normal maps.
Basically, to use a DooM3 created normal map in Maya, you have to invert the green channel of the image. Same thing, if you create a normal map in Maya, to use it in DooM3, you have to invert the green channel.
With this small info, it's really easy to work with normals: whatever your engine is, if your normal map looks inverted just open it in photoshop
But, that's not enough: You are using XNormal, and that's the best choice you can do with the hassle of creating normal maps: quick, simple to use, and it creates the best normal maps (it's second only to DooM integrated renderbump). In XNormal (like in Zbrush) you can choose, in the normal map tab, which channel you want inverted or not in your image file.
Ps: the problem in your last post seems like a UV problem; may you post your uv layout?
obihb@Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:46 pm :
Renderbump is not too difficult to use, once you get how it works.
I haven't used it for a very long time but here is as I remember it. If I miss something, I'm sorry in advance. But this should be pretty much how it works.
Export both low and high poly to .ase or .lwo file. They must occupy the same space. You must export normals and UV info. Although UV is only used for the low poly.
Put both exported models in base/models
This location is not mandatory, so feel free to use your own location.
Make sure you have a Doom material that actually works for the low poly model. If the material does not work the renderbump will not work.
... to your material. This is the info to create the proper normal map and reference the high poly model.
I recommend to run Doom in windowed mode before rendering the map. The size there is the size of the map it saves out. The "aa" is anti-aliasing and I'll suggest to make it 0 for testing purpose to speed it up. Once you get a good result you can push it up for final renders. The trace is the distance it will trace for high poly normals. Tweak this if you are missing some normals or get some overlaps of close geometry. The next line is the file name of the TGA it'll save and the last bit is the reference to the high poly model
So then inside Doom you bring down the console and type..
renderbump models/lowpoly.ase
This of course needs to point to your low poly model. You can use TAB to just quickly pick through. I'm sure you know the TAB shortcut in the Doom console.
So that is pretty much it.
Main things are to have proper exports. Just to be safe you can keep them scaled in game dimensions. So it's not like super huge or really tiny. And of course the material has to work. I know lots of people struggle with that, not using material names correctly and so on.
I hope this is helpful and I didn't miss something important..
modern@Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:05 am :
Sometimes normal maps in the real-time preview in Max look fubard just like that. It can be a glitch in the preview that occurs when it does not update correctly, and can be fixed by turning the DX material preview off, and then back on. I find using DX material previews often crashes Max. It could be just as buggy in Maya. I would worry about what the normal map looks like in Doom, and dont pay too much attention to how it appears in Maya.
Dinky@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:39 am :
I've been working on this character for a little while, and now I'm almost complete with the high res. When I make my models, I first try and make them as low polygon as possible, then send them into ZBrush for detailing. I have not sent this character to ZBrush yet, but I am pretty much done with it in Maya.
But right now, instead of detailing it in ZBrush just yet, I'm making the low poly model for when I put it into Doom 3.
Here she is in polygon form un-smoothed:
Aurra:
Aurra's gun in holster:
Aurra head:
Aurra Sing is a character from Star Wars, she was in the movie (Episode 1) but only a very brief cameo (it lasted like two seconds). But she does have Comic books and I think she's in some novels.
There are a few minor accessories I have to make, which is pockets and stuff on her vest. But that's just too simple and it doesn't matter enough to make it real quick then post screens .
Anyway, hope you like!
kat@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:04 am :
Proportions are generally good, only crit is that her hands look a tad too small? Could do with being may 10-20% larger?
Tron@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:01 am :
I'd say you could probably do a lot less polys on that gun. Look forward to seeing this normal mapped.
Dinky@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 am :
Thanks for comments and critique!
@Kat - Yeah I kinda agree with you on the hands, I'd been thinking about modifying the hands, along with shaping the arms a little bit more before I do more work to the model. Now I think I will modify the hands since now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that area looks a little off.
@Tron - You're probably right in some places, but to be honest it doesn't really matter since it's not going to be included to the final low poly game model. But you should also note that I added a few lines in-case I were to take it into ZBrush with the rest of the model, I wouldn't want certain parts of the gun to get all smoothed and rounded when I divide the entire mesh. But I may not export it to ZBrush with the character, so I could just be wasting poly's like you said.
Last night I did a little bit of the low res mesh but I was a bit too busy and tired tonight to do anything so I'll just save it for tomorrow ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 pm :
dinky, good model so far and cool star wars character you've chosen to work with
I also was thinking her hands looked a little too small, and that a low poly gun could have a lot less polys. other then those I'm wondering if the polys between her crotch and her belt could be smoothed out more, as I think they look too angular at the moment, but maybe its the angle of the screen shot.
last year I started modeling a human male for the first time, and it was a lot harder then I imagined it would to be to get the proportions and edge loops looking right, even with lots of reference images, so I appreciate the work involved involved in modeling a human or non fantasy creature.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:17 am :
@ratty redemption - Yeah, Aurra Sing is one of my favorites . And that's NOT the low poly gun. That gun actually won't be used by the character either, it will just be normal mapped onto a low res version. And the crotch is actually made correctly, because when I divide it into a few million polies in ZBrush (or turn it into Sub-d's) it smooths out properly. If I were to make them straight, then it would just be flat. That area has to look "tucked in", which is what it does right now at the position those edges are.
Anyway, I got a low res completed today, and I put her in-game as a test model. No texture yet but I'll get to that last (after I normal map her). I'll just be texturing the low res, not the high res (though I know Doom 3's Renderbump can transfer textures from high res model to low res).
Here's the screenshot of her in my Doom 3 testing ground map (low res version). It's 2022 triangles, a little high but... Meh.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:57 pm :
Your model high-polycount VS low-polycount zones is a bit strange for me.
look:
In RED zones you put some extra polys to make little details that you will only see to a very close distance (distA), but in the YELLOW zone, you optimized your torso so much that you CAN'T come near to distA and still looking as good as red zones.
Here i think you must remove these extra polys in red zone to add these in the yellow one (to keep a good hips curve).
All these "clothes thickness" polys can be normalmapped without any problem.
That's just some ideas on how i would optimize this model, nothing obligatory of course!
Good luck on your model Dinky.
PS: Isn't "Aurra Sing" the girl character that player control in one of the Jedi Knight extansion?
Rayne@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:42 pm :
those polys are there probably to mantain good looking deformations at animation time.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:43 pm :
dinky, understood and cool
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:00 pm :
@6th Venom - I appreciate you adding your own comments and critique. But I'm aware of everything you just said. As Rayne said, those polies that I added at the knee/ankle/elbows/wrists/shoulders are for animation, and since the torso won't be as extensively animated as the limbs, and even if it is animated it will be subtle and it won't really matter since it's a rather thick part of the model.
If animation points like the elbows/shoulders/ankles/etc. don't get a few more poly's for animation then it will deform VERY unrealistically. But as for the "Jacket" or the "Vest" she's wearing, I am aware that could have been added through normal mapping, but I was afraid that maybe the character silhouette would look strange in-game. Besides, I've tried to normal map similar models in the same way you're talking about, and I got a ridiculously ugly result (or atleast IMO).
And as for Aurra Sing in the Jedi Knight games, I'm not sure. Do you mean Jedi Academy when you say "extansion [expansion?]"?? If you're saying Jedi Academy then no, because I don't EVER remember Aurra Sing in that game. And as far as I've known she's only been in one game, and that's some old N64 game.
And BTW, ratty redemption I'm lovin' your "ratty d3 hell map" wip! Looks great, keep it up.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:41 am :
I used to think modeling terrain was complicated but compared to character modeling, it's relatively straight forward. I also only experimented a little with animating my human model last year, but soon realized I should of built the model from the beginning with edge loops designed for animating, rather then just an acceptable looking static mesh, and as this would of taken more time and effort to fix I put that model on hold, until I had gained more practice with static meshes in blender.
ot: thanks a lot dinky, it's really encouraging to hear some of you guys are still interested in that project of mine, since I haven't worked on it for 3 months, although that was mainly due to moving home and having to use my girlfriends pc until mine was set up, but I'm pretty much back on track again
edit: dinky, would you mind editing the size of your images on this page, as it's forcing some of us to scroll sideways to read all the text. I'm using 1024 width desktop but used to be on 800 which I imagine would require even more side scrolling.
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:59 am :
@Dinky: I think it was the 1st Jedi knight's "expansion" ( ).
And for model itself, i understand that you need extra polies were there are huge deformations, but i'm still sure they are not "optimals", but whatever...
I love the idea to see more women in Doom.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:00 am :
Rezised.
I edited the "Aurra's Head" screenshot, since that was the only one I was having probs with. From now on I'll use ImageShack's thumbnail option. I can't change these to imageshack thumbnails since I don't have their upload page anymore (I should really register there). And I could make thumbnails, but I'm just too lazy. I hope that's good enough for your tiny resolution! I'm always either running 1920x1080, 1280x720 or 1280x1024.
If she was in Jedi Outcast (which is Jedi Knight 2) then I don't remember her, but I was like 12 or something when that game came out (though I did play it a little, I spent much more time on Raven Shield [Rainbow Six]). I'm 17 now (will be 18 later this year) ^_^.
As for my model and the "optimization", if you take a look at the doom guy behind Aurra, he certainly looks a lot higher poly than Aurra, or atleast to me he does. But bah, this model is still around the limit, and compared to the Quake 4 multiplayer Marine, she only has a few more polies than him, and that's probably because she has 5 fingers, not 3 like they do (10 counting the other hand). I HATE the Doom 3 and Quake 4 models, how they don't have individual fingers, it drives me crazy.
BTW, here's the link yet again to her WookiePedia in-case you missed it at the top (or just don't want to scroll back up and find it): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aurra_Sing
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:37 am :
ot: dinky, thanks. this is much easier to read now
imo guys like you and kit89 who is a similar age to you, are very lucky to get into games modding, and or 3d modeling at your age. I've just turned 38 and still have a lot to learn in some of these technical and artistic areas, but when you guys are learning and developing these skills at the rate you are, then by the time your in your mid to late 20's or 30`s you guys should be very skilled and experienced
I now find it difficult to comprehend how limited the computers we had when we were teen agers. one of the first computers I owned, being a 48kb sinclair spectrum, although at the time, home computers with color was ground breaking
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:31 am :
Yeah, young ones in the modding community isn't really TOO common, but it is becoming more common I think. The most important thing, in my opinion, to get younger kids into computer is to get them to play games on PCs rather than Consoles! PC Gaming opens up this whole new world for everyone, because there's not just an online gaming presence that's over a decade old, but there's also of course the amazing modding community. Eventually one thing will lead to another and the kid will soon be installing mods in their games instead of just the vanilla game. Then they'll think that's neat and want to do it themselve's.
But the only reason I got into computers and software like this at all is because of my father. When I was very young he got me into computers. And his first computer, I'm pretty sure was this one right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80. My Father and I are complete opposites though, he's a programmer and I'm an artist. And programming has to be the hardest thing I've ever tried to learn, it was the most difficult thing I had to face during web design was learning Actionscript (Macromedia Flash language). Anything to do with art though and I learn it pretty quick I think.
Oh and the first thing I got into wasn't modding though, it was web design. But I got interested in 3D after that (due to the movies.. I was like 14), THEN I got into modding games. But enough about me, I think PC Gaming is probably one of the best thing any young kid can get into, because it most likely will eventually lead to modding, which will lead to the desire to make mods .
Ok I just realized I sound like Yoda...
Quote:
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 am :
ot: understood and agreed, pc gaming is very important if new people are going to get into the modding scene, that is unless consoles catch up with pc's in the editing software etc.
I've also dabbled a little in coding with the d3 engine, but like you I'm more of an artist so didn't find coding to feel a natural process for me. I also think I'm more at home working with 3d then 2d although I've been working with the latter for decades.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:36 am :
Well I sort-of halfway forgot to make her vest accessories. I didn't really forget.. I kinda just... Skipped it for moment.
Anyway, I did all the front pockets n' stuff, now I just have to do the thing that's on her back, which really isn't all that big of a deal, I won't post it like I am posting these.
All the models are in Sub-D's, which is why they look so smooth ^_^:
For references on the vest (and the entire character), I used Aurra Sing's WookiePedia page and her comic books that I bought for even more reference (she doesn't have many live action photos or concepts to go from).
EDIT: I did some minor modifications to the sides of the lower pockets, so please don't make any critique to the sides of those two pockets at the bottum. You still can critique the lower pockets, just not the sides... heheh... I'm a perfectionist...
EDIT 2: I also forgot to mention one thing! The reason why all the accessories are floating away from her vest is because when the high res model is normal mapped onto the low res model, those models will no longer exist, and they will only appear as a normal map ON the character. So it gives the illusion that the accessories and stuff is actually on the vest, when in actuality, on the high res character, it wasn't... It was floating above it. Pretty cool, and gives modelers a lot less work ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:09 am :
cool and nice collar bone modeling. I found muscle structure and bones visible under the skin to be two of the hardest things to model, I didn't even get as far as you have with this model, but maybe I'll try again one day with blender's new sculpt (z brush inspired) tool.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:18 pm :
I actually never used Maya's sculting tool. Good work can be done with it, but only when you have a higher polycount than I do on my high res version of Aurra Sing. Besides, I just prefer ZBrush's sculpting tools, it really feels like you're working with clay in ZBrush, and their tools are just so much better than any other software that I've used for sculpting.
The two software that I know a lot of people say are great for sculpting is ZBrush (the one I use) and MudBox (I've never used MudBox though).
The way I model characters in Maya is I start from a single polygon face, and I extrude edge by edge until I complete my model. So basically, I model my characters polygon by polygon, in my opinion, it's the best way to model a character although it's probably the most time consuming.
Also, getting bone and muscle (anatomical) structure to appear realistic is best achieved when you first start with splitting edges and getting the geometry to flow in the proper direction. For example, if you want to create a thigh muscle, you create rings of split edges around the correct area, then move the poly's around to get the proper look, then once you complete the desired effect you divide the mesh until you get a good polygon count, THEN you sculpt it out to make it more realistic.
Err atleast, that's my procedure. But now that I've completed EVERYTHING that I needed to do with high res Aurra Sing in Maya, my next step is to take her into ZBrush and detail her. After that it's Doom 3 renderbump time ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:37 pm :
understood and if I could afford it, I would probably get zbrush, but us blender users are really pleased a zbrush like sculpt tool is being coded into blender, even if its not as easy to use or powerful as zbrush.
like yourself I sometimes model polygon by polygon, other times I've used box modeling, which as you know is similar in that it involves a lot of extruding.
I've also started with a single face and sub divided it several times, then dragged the verts to form a basic terrain mesh. I don't think I could just use one method, although I know some are faster to work with then others.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:32 am :
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Still WIP!
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:45 am :
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:05 am :
wow, that's looking considerably better then the lower poly versions, although they were good
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:40 am :
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:58 am :
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
modern@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:11 pm :
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:59 pm :
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:07 pm :
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
kit89@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:49 pm :
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:18 pm :
kit89 wrote:
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
Dinky@Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:09 am :
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:06 am :
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Tron@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:05 am :
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:26 am :
Tron wrote:
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:08 am :
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Tron@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:09 am :
How about you give us more information, post a screenshot of exactly how the normal map isn't appearing right? It's likely just some simple error so should be easy to fix, unless you are doing something totally wrong in regards to the model.
I've used the RenderBump feature before and it worked fine.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:22 am :
Well, right now I'm trying to use xnormal to make my normal maps, and after taking some time out and looking at some things I've discovered cages. I've heard of them before in ZBrush, but I've never had to bother with them. Now this is supposed to make it so that rays have an easier time measuring distance between the high poly and the low poly model. But when I tried to use it with a section of my model (high res and low res), it pretty much only sat there and did nothing (after a few procedures within the software).
It may have something to do with the model, as it's over a mill in poly's. Now I've actually cut my model up into pieces for detailing in ZBrush. Arms cut off, vest cut off, etc. All the limbs n' stuff are individual pieces right now, it's easier to work that way.
As for Doom 3's Renderbump, I've only seen a few tutorials and none of them really helped me, mostly because they completely differed from eachother and they didn't describe it step by step too well, so I kinda got lost. The only tut's n' stuff that I can find that explain well are talking about renderbumpflat (for high polygon walls n' stuff, not characters). I don't know if there's much of a difference, but nothing worked for me. It would be nice if I could find a GOOD tutorial somewhere.
And I would post a screenshot but right now I'm trying a bunch of things with XNormals and doing it the way I am right now, like I said, it's not even generating the normal maps anymore. You'd be helping me out by linking me to some renderbump tutorials though, because I don't know much about it, other than it can transfer geometry information and color from a high poly to a low poly (duh).
EDIT: Oh and the model should be squared away. UV Map is correct and clean, normals are facing out blah blah blah. Everything should work =/.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:17 pm :
glad to hear your persevering with this project dinky, despite the technical problems you've run into. anyway good luck and please keep us updated.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:20 am :
Well here it is. I've pretty much tried everything, but it just seems that there's nothing I can do to make it work right. Atleast with the XNormals program.
-Rendered with Maya Software engine.
Among many other problems, it looks like the knees are going IN, instead of out, but I think I may know why this is. I think using XNormals may be one of my problems, I just don't know much about using it. The only normal map creation expierence I have is with ZBrush, and that's for just for the base mesh of a high polygon model, not a high polygon model to a seperate low polygon model, as far as I know you can't do that in ZBrush.
A good D3 Renderbump walkthrough would be a project saver. But right now I'm stumped, there's nothing that I can think of that I haven't tried.
Rayne@Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:00 pm :
When your normal map looks inverted you have to invert the Green channel of your normal map image. Just open it in photoshop, select the green channel and press Ctrl + I .
Sometimes you have to invert the red channel (if I remeber correctly), but the point is: every program creates normal maps in its own way, so you have to know which type of normal map your engine likes.
Let's do some examples:
DooM3 uses the sometimes called "ATi style normal maps", which have the green channel inverted in respect of Maya and Max normal maps.
Basically, to use a DooM3 created normal map in Maya, you have to invert the green channel of the image. Same thing, if you create a normal map in Maya, to use it in DooM3, you have to invert the green channel.
With this small info, it's really easy to work with normals: whatever your engine is, if your normal map looks inverted just open it in photoshop
But, that's not enough: You are using XNormal, and that's the best choice you can do with the hassle of creating normal maps: quick, simple to use, and it creates the best normal maps (it's second only to DooM integrated renderbump). In XNormal (like in Zbrush) you can choose, in the normal map tab, which channel you want inverted or not in your image file.
Ps: the problem in your last post seems like a UV problem; may you post your uv layout?
obihb@Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:46 pm :
Renderbump is not too difficult to use, once you get how it works.
I haven't used it for a very long time but here is as I remember it. If I miss something, I'm sorry in advance. But this should be pretty much how it works.
Export both low and high poly to .ase or .lwo file. They must occupy the same space. You must export normals and UV info. Although UV is only used for the low poly.
Put both exported models in base/models
This location is not mandatory, so feel free to use your own location.
Make sure you have a Doom material that actually works for the low poly model. If the material does not work the renderbump will not work.
... to your material. This is the info to create the proper normal map and reference the high poly model.
I recommend to run Doom in windowed mode before rendering the map. The size there is the size of the map it saves out. The "aa" is anti-aliasing and I'll suggest to make it 0 for testing purpose to speed it up. Once you get a good result you can push it up for final renders. The trace is the distance it will trace for high poly normals. Tweak this if you are missing some normals or get some overlaps of close geometry. The next line is the file name of the TGA it'll save and the last bit is the reference to the high poly model
So then inside Doom you bring down the console and type..
renderbump models/lowpoly.ase
This of course needs to point to your low poly model. You can use TAB to just quickly pick through. I'm sure you know the TAB shortcut in the Doom console.
So that is pretty much it.
Main things are to have proper exports. Just to be safe you can keep them scaled in game dimensions. So it's not like super huge or really tiny. And of course the material has to work. I know lots of people struggle with that, not using material names correctly and so on.
I hope this is helpful and I didn't miss something important..
modern@Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:05 am :
Sometimes normal maps in the real-time preview in Max look fubard just like that. It can be a glitch in the preview that occurs when it does not update correctly, and can be fixed by turning the DX material preview off, and then back on. I find using DX material previews often crashes Max. It could be just as buggy in Maya. I would worry about what the normal map looks like in Doom, and dont pay too much attention to how it appears in Maya.
Dinky@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:39 am :
I've been working on this character for a little while, and now I'm almost complete with the high res. When I make my models, I first try and make them as low polygon as possible, then send them into ZBrush for detailing. I have not sent this character to ZBrush yet, but I am pretty much done with it in Maya.
But right now, instead of detailing it in ZBrush just yet, I'm making the low poly model for when I put it into Doom 3.
Here she is in polygon form un-smoothed:
Aurra:
Aurra's gun in holster:
Aurra head:
Aurra Sing is a character from Star Wars, she was in the movie (Episode 1) but only a very brief cameo (it lasted like two seconds). But she does have Comic books and I think she's in some novels.
There are a few minor accessories I have to make, which is pockets and stuff on her vest. But that's just too simple and it doesn't matter enough to make it real quick then post screens .
Anyway, hope you like!
kat@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:04 am :
Proportions are generally good, only crit is that her hands look a tad too small? Could do with being may 10-20% larger?
Tron@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:01 am :
I'd say you could probably do a lot less polys on that gun. Look forward to seeing this normal mapped.
Dinky@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 am :
Thanks for comments and critique!
@Kat - Yeah I kinda agree with you on the hands, I'd been thinking about modifying the hands, along with shaping the arms a little bit more before I do more work to the model. Now I think I will modify the hands since now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that area looks a little off.
@Tron - You're probably right in some places, but to be honest it doesn't really matter since it's not going to be included to the final low poly game model. But you should also note that I added a few lines in-case I were to take it into ZBrush with the rest of the model, I wouldn't want certain parts of the gun to get all smoothed and rounded when I divide the entire mesh. But I may not export it to ZBrush with the character, so I could just be wasting poly's like you said.
Last night I did a little bit of the low res mesh but I was a bit too busy and tired tonight to do anything so I'll just save it for tomorrow ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 pm :
dinky, good model so far and cool star wars character you've chosen to work with
I also was thinking her hands looked a little too small, and that a low poly gun could have a lot less polys. other then those I'm wondering if the polys between her crotch and her belt could be smoothed out more, as I think they look too angular at the moment, but maybe its the angle of the screen shot.
last year I started modeling a human male for the first time, and it was a lot harder then I imagined it would to be to get the proportions and edge loops looking right, even with lots of reference images, so I appreciate the work involved involved in modeling a human or non fantasy creature.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:17 am :
@ratty redemption - Yeah, Aurra Sing is one of my favorites . And that's NOT the low poly gun. That gun actually won't be used by the character either, it will just be normal mapped onto a low res version. And the crotch is actually made correctly, because when I divide it into a few million polies in ZBrush (or turn it into Sub-d's) it smooths out properly. If I were to make them straight, then it would just be flat. That area has to look "tucked in", which is what it does right now at the position those edges are.
Anyway, I got a low res completed today, and I put her in-game as a test model. No texture yet but I'll get to that last (after I normal map her). I'll just be texturing the low res, not the high res (though I know Doom 3's Renderbump can transfer textures from high res model to low res).
Here's the screenshot of her in my Doom 3 testing ground map (low res version). It's 2022 triangles, a little high but... Meh.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:57 pm :
Your model high-polycount VS low-polycount zones is a bit strange for me.
look:
In RED zones you put some extra polys to make little details that you will only see to a very close distance (distA), but in the YELLOW zone, you optimized your torso so much that you CAN'T come near to distA and still looking as good as red zones.
Here i think you must remove these extra polys in red zone to add these in the yellow one (to keep a good hips curve).
All these "clothes thickness" polys can be normalmapped without any problem.
That's just some ideas on how i would optimize this model, nothing obligatory of course!
Good luck on your model Dinky.
PS: Isn't "Aurra Sing" the girl character that player control in one of the Jedi Knight extansion?
Rayne@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:42 pm :
those polys are there probably to mantain good looking deformations at animation time.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:43 pm :
dinky, understood and cool
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:00 pm :
@6th Venom - I appreciate you adding your own comments and critique. But I'm aware of everything you just said. As Rayne said, those polies that I added at the knee/ankle/elbows/wrists/shoulders are for animation, and since the torso won't be as extensively animated as the limbs, and even if it is animated it will be subtle and it won't really matter since it's a rather thick part of the model.
If animation points like the elbows/shoulders/ankles/etc. don't get a few more poly's for animation then it will deform VERY unrealistically. But as for the "Jacket" or the "Vest" she's wearing, I am aware that could have been added through normal mapping, but I was afraid that maybe the character silhouette would look strange in-game. Besides, I've tried to normal map similar models in the same way you're talking about, and I got a ridiculously ugly result (or atleast IMO).
And as for Aurra Sing in the Jedi Knight games, I'm not sure. Do you mean Jedi Academy when you say "extansion [expansion?]"?? If you're saying Jedi Academy then no, because I don't EVER remember Aurra Sing in that game. And as far as I've known she's only been in one game, and that's some old N64 game.
And BTW, ratty redemption I'm lovin' your "ratty d3 hell map" wip! Looks great, keep it up.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:41 am :
I used to think modeling terrain was complicated but compared to character modeling, it's relatively straight forward. I also only experimented a little with animating my human model last year, but soon realized I should of built the model from the beginning with edge loops designed for animating, rather then just an acceptable looking static mesh, and as this would of taken more time and effort to fix I put that model on hold, until I had gained more practice with static meshes in blender.
ot: thanks a lot dinky, it's really encouraging to hear some of you guys are still interested in that project of mine, since I haven't worked on it for 3 months, although that was mainly due to moving home and having to use my girlfriends pc until mine was set up, but I'm pretty much back on track again
edit: dinky, would you mind editing the size of your images on this page, as it's forcing some of us to scroll sideways to read all the text. I'm using 1024 width desktop but used to be on 800 which I imagine would require even more side scrolling.
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:59 am :
@Dinky: I think it was the 1st Jedi knight's "expansion" ( ).
And for model itself, i understand that you need extra polies were there are huge deformations, but i'm still sure they are not "optimals", but whatever...
I love the idea to see more women in Doom.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:00 am :
Rezised.
I edited the "Aurra's Head" screenshot, since that was the only one I was having probs with. From now on I'll use ImageShack's thumbnail option. I can't change these to imageshack thumbnails since I don't have their upload page anymore (I should really register there). And I could make thumbnails, but I'm just too lazy. I hope that's good enough for your tiny resolution! I'm always either running 1920x1080, 1280x720 or 1280x1024.
If she was in Jedi Outcast (which is Jedi Knight 2) then I don't remember her, but I was like 12 or something when that game came out (though I did play it a little, I spent much more time on Raven Shield [Rainbow Six]). I'm 17 now (will be 18 later this year) ^_^.
As for my model and the "optimization", if you take a look at the doom guy behind Aurra, he certainly looks a lot higher poly than Aurra, or atleast to me he does. But bah, this model is still around the limit, and compared to the Quake 4 multiplayer Marine, she only has a few more polies than him, and that's probably because she has 5 fingers, not 3 like they do (10 counting the other hand). I HATE the Doom 3 and Quake 4 models, how they don't have individual fingers, it drives me crazy.
BTW, here's the link yet again to her WookiePedia in-case you missed it at the top (or just don't want to scroll back up and find it): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aurra_Sing
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:37 am :
ot: dinky, thanks. this is much easier to read now
imo guys like you and kit89 who is a similar age to you, are very lucky to get into games modding, and or 3d modeling at your age. I've just turned 38 and still have a lot to learn in some of these technical and artistic areas, but when you guys are learning and developing these skills at the rate you are, then by the time your in your mid to late 20's or 30`s you guys should be very skilled and experienced
I now find it difficult to comprehend how limited the computers we had when we were teen agers. one of the first computers I owned, being a 48kb sinclair spectrum, although at the time, home computers with color was ground breaking
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:31 am :
Yeah, young ones in the modding community isn't really TOO common, but it is becoming more common I think. The most important thing, in my opinion, to get younger kids into computer is to get them to play games on PCs rather than Consoles! PC Gaming opens up this whole new world for everyone, because there's not just an online gaming presence that's over a decade old, but there's also of course the amazing modding community. Eventually one thing will lead to another and the kid will soon be installing mods in their games instead of just the vanilla game. Then they'll think that's neat and want to do it themselve's.
But the only reason I got into computers and software like this at all is because of my father. When I was very young he got me into computers. And his first computer, I'm pretty sure was this one right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80. My Father and I are complete opposites though, he's a programmer and I'm an artist. And programming has to be the hardest thing I've ever tried to learn, it was the most difficult thing I had to face during web design was learning Actionscript (Macromedia Flash language). Anything to do with art though and I learn it pretty quick I think.
Oh and the first thing I got into wasn't modding though, it was web design. But I got interested in 3D after that (due to the movies.. I was like 14), THEN I got into modding games. But enough about me, I think PC Gaming is probably one of the best thing any young kid can get into, because it most likely will eventually lead to modding, which will lead to the desire to make mods .
Ok I just realized I sound like Yoda...
Quote:
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 am :
ot: understood and agreed, pc gaming is very important if new people are going to get into the modding scene, that is unless consoles catch up with pc's in the editing software etc.
I've also dabbled a little in coding with the d3 engine, but like you I'm more of an artist so didn't find coding to feel a natural process for me. I also think I'm more at home working with 3d then 2d although I've been working with the latter for decades.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:36 am :
Well I sort-of halfway forgot to make her vest accessories. I didn't really forget.. I kinda just... Skipped it for moment.
Anyway, I did all the front pockets n' stuff, now I just have to do the thing that's on her back, which really isn't all that big of a deal, I won't post it like I am posting these.
All the models are in Sub-D's, which is why they look so smooth ^_^:
For references on the vest (and the entire character), I used Aurra Sing's WookiePedia page and her comic books that I bought for even more reference (she doesn't have many live action photos or concepts to go from).
EDIT: I did some minor modifications to the sides of the lower pockets, so please don't make any critique to the sides of those two pockets at the bottum. You still can critique the lower pockets, just not the sides... heheh... I'm a perfectionist...
EDIT 2: I also forgot to mention one thing! The reason why all the accessories are floating away from her vest is because when the high res model is normal mapped onto the low res model, those models will no longer exist, and they will only appear as a normal map ON the character. So it gives the illusion that the accessories and stuff is actually on the vest, when in actuality, on the high res character, it wasn't... It was floating above it. Pretty cool, and gives modelers a lot less work ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:09 am :
cool and nice collar bone modeling. I found muscle structure and bones visible under the skin to be two of the hardest things to model, I didn't even get as far as you have with this model, but maybe I'll try again one day with blender's new sculpt (z brush inspired) tool.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:18 pm :
I actually never used Maya's sculting tool. Good work can be done with it, but only when you have a higher polycount than I do on my high res version of Aurra Sing. Besides, I just prefer ZBrush's sculpting tools, it really feels like you're working with clay in ZBrush, and their tools are just so much better than any other software that I've used for sculpting.
The two software that I know a lot of people say are great for sculpting is ZBrush (the one I use) and MudBox (I've never used MudBox though).
The way I model characters in Maya is I start from a single polygon face, and I extrude edge by edge until I complete my model. So basically, I model my characters polygon by polygon, in my opinion, it's the best way to model a character although it's probably the most time consuming.
Also, getting bone and muscle (anatomical) structure to appear realistic is best achieved when you first start with splitting edges and getting the geometry to flow in the proper direction. For example, if you want to create a thigh muscle, you create rings of split edges around the correct area, then move the poly's around to get the proper look, then once you complete the desired effect you divide the mesh until you get a good polygon count, THEN you sculpt it out to make it more realistic.
Err atleast, that's my procedure. But now that I've completed EVERYTHING that I needed to do with high res Aurra Sing in Maya, my next step is to take her into ZBrush and detail her. After that it's Doom 3 renderbump time ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:37 pm :
understood and if I could afford it, I would probably get zbrush, but us blender users are really pleased a zbrush like sculpt tool is being coded into blender, even if its not as easy to use or powerful as zbrush.
like yourself I sometimes model polygon by polygon, other times I've used box modeling, which as you know is similar in that it involves a lot of extruding.
I've also started with a single face and sub divided it several times, then dragged the verts to form a basic terrain mesh. I don't think I could just use one method, although I know some are faster to work with then others.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:32 am :
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Still WIP!
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:45 am :
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:05 am :
wow, that's looking considerably better then the lower poly versions, although they were good
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:40 am :
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:58 am :
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
modern@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:11 pm :
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:59 pm :
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:07 pm :
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
kit89@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:49 pm :
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:18 pm :
kit89 wrote:
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
Dinky@Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:09 am :
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:06 am :
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Tron@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:05 am :
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:26 am :
Tron wrote:
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:08 am :
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Tron@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:09 am :
How about you give us more information, post a screenshot of exactly how the normal map isn't appearing right? It's likely just some simple error so should be easy to fix, unless you are doing something totally wrong in regards to the model.
I've used the RenderBump feature before and it worked fine.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:32 am :
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Still WIP!
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:45 am :
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:05 am :
wow, that's looking considerably better then the lower poly versions, although they were good
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:40 am :
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:58 am :
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
modern@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:11 pm :
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:59 pm :
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:07 pm :
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
kit89@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:49 pm :
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:18 pm :
kit89 wrote:
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
Dinky@Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:09 am :
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:06 am :
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Tron@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:05 am :
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:26 am :
Tron wrote:
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:08 am :
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Tron@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:09 am :
How about you give us more information, post a screenshot of exactly how the normal map isn't appearing right? It's likely just some simple error so should be easy to fix, unless you are doing something totally wrong in regards to the model.
I've used the RenderBump feature before and it worked fine.
Dinky@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:39 am :
I've been working on this character for a little while, and now I'm almost complete with the high res. When I make my models, I first try and make them as low polygon as possible, then send them into ZBrush for detailing. I have not sent this character to ZBrush yet, but I am pretty much done with it in Maya.
But right now, instead of detailing it in ZBrush just yet, I'm making the low poly model for when I put it into Doom 3.
Here she is in polygon form un-smoothed:
Aurra:
Aurra's gun in holster:
Aurra head:
Aurra Sing is a character from Star Wars, she was in the movie (Episode 1) but only a very brief cameo (it lasted like two seconds). But she does have Comic books and I think she's in some novels.
There are a few minor accessories I have to make, which is pockets and stuff on her vest. But that's just too simple and it doesn't matter enough to make it real quick then post screens .
Anyway, hope you like!
kat@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:04 am :
Proportions are generally good, only crit is that her hands look a tad too small? Could do with being may 10-20% larger?
Tron@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:01 am :
I'd say you could probably do a lot less polys on that gun. Look forward to seeing this normal mapped.
Dinky@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 am :
Thanks for comments and critique!
@Kat - Yeah I kinda agree with you on the hands, I'd been thinking about modifying the hands, along with shaping the arms a little bit more before I do more work to the model. Now I think I will modify the hands since now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that area looks a little off.
@Tron - You're probably right in some places, but to be honest it doesn't really matter since it's not going to be included to the final low poly game model. But you should also note that I added a few lines in-case I were to take it into ZBrush with the rest of the model, I wouldn't want certain parts of the gun to get all smoothed and rounded when I divide the entire mesh. But I may not export it to ZBrush with the character, so I could just be wasting poly's like you said.
Last night I did a little bit of the low res mesh but I was a bit too busy and tired tonight to do anything so I'll just save it for tomorrow ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 pm :
dinky, good model so far and cool star wars character you've chosen to work with
I also was thinking her hands looked a little too small, and that a low poly gun could have a lot less polys. other then those I'm wondering if the polys between her crotch and her belt could be smoothed out more, as I think they look too angular at the moment, but maybe its the angle of the screen shot.
last year I started modeling a human male for the first time, and it was a lot harder then I imagined it would to be to get the proportions and edge loops looking right, even with lots of reference images, so I appreciate the work involved involved in modeling a human or non fantasy creature.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:17 am :
@ratty redemption - Yeah, Aurra Sing is one of my favorites . And that's NOT the low poly gun. That gun actually won't be used by the character either, it will just be normal mapped onto a low res version. And the crotch is actually made correctly, because when I divide it into a few million polies in ZBrush (or turn it into Sub-d's) it smooths out properly. If I were to make them straight, then it would just be flat. That area has to look "tucked in", which is what it does right now at the position those edges are.
Anyway, I got a low res completed today, and I put her in-game as a test model. No texture yet but I'll get to that last (after I normal map her). I'll just be texturing the low res, not the high res (though I know Doom 3's Renderbump can transfer textures from high res model to low res).
Here's the screenshot of her in my Doom 3 testing ground map (low res version). It's 2022 triangles, a little high but... Meh.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:57 pm :
Your model high-polycount VS low-polycount zones is a bit strange for me.
look:
In RED zones you put some extra polys to make little details that you will only see to a very close distance (distA), but in the YELLOW zone, you optimized your torso so much that you CAN'T come near to distA and still looking as good as red zones.
Here i think you must remove these extra polys in red zone to add these in the yellow one (to keep a good hips curve).
All these "clothes thickness" polys can be normalmapped without any problem.
That's just some ideas on how i would optimize this model, nothing obligatory of course!
Good luck on your model Dinky.
PS: Isn't "Aurra Sing" the girl character that player control in one of the Jedi Knight extansion?
Rayne@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:42 pm :
those polys are there probably to mantain good looking deformations at animation time.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:43 pm :
dinky, understood and cool
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:00 pm :
@6th Venom - I appreciate you adding your own comments and critique. But I'm aware of everything you just said. As Rayne said, those polies that I added at the knee/ankle/elbows/wrists/shoulders are for animation, and since the torso won't be as extensively animated as the limbs, and even if it is animated it will be subtle and it won't really matter since it's a rather thick part of the model.
If animation points like the elbows/shoulders/ankles/etc. don't get a few more poly's for animation then it will deform VERY unrealistically. But as for the "Jacket" or the "Vest" she's wearing, I am aware that could have been added through normal mapping, but I was afraid that maybe the character silhouette would look strange in-game. Besides, I've tried to normal map similar models in the same way you're talking about, and I got a ridiculously ugly result (or atleast IMO).
And as for Aurra Sing in the Jedi Knight games, I'm not sure. Do you mean Jedi Academy when you say "extansion [expansion?]"?? If you're saying Jedi Academy then no, because I don't EVER remember Aurra Sing in that game. And as far as I've known she's only been in one game, and that's some old N64 game.
And BTW, ratty redemption I'm lovin' your "ratty d3 hell map" wip! Looks great, keep it up.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:41 am :
I used to think modeling terrain was complicated but compared to character modeling, it's relatively straight forward. I also only experimented a little with animating my human model last year, but soon realized I should of built the model from the beginning with edge loops designed for animating, rather then just an acceptable looking static mesh, and as this would of taken more time and effort to fix I put that model on hold, until I had gained more practice with static meshes in blender.
ot: thanks a lot dinky, it's really encouraging to hear some of you guys are still interested in that project of mine, since I haven't worked on it for 3 months, although that was mainly due to moving home and having to use my girlfriends pc until mine was set up, but I'm pretty much back on track again
edit: dinky, would you mind editing the size of your images on this page, as it's forcing some of us to scroll sideways to read all the text. I'm using 1024 width desktop but used to be on 800 which I imagine would require even more side scrolling.
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:59 am :
@Dinky: I think it was the 1st Jedi knight's "expansion" ( ).
And for model itself, i understand that you need extra polies were there are huge deformations, but i'm still sure they are not "optimals", but whatever...
I love the idea to see more women in Doom.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:00 am :
Rezised.
I edited the "Aurra's Head" screenshot, since that was the only one I was having probs with. From now on I'll use ImageShack's thumbnail option. I can't change these to imageshack thumbnails since I don't have their upload page anymore (I should really register there). And I could make thumbnails, but I'm just too lazy. I hope that's good enough for your tiny resolution! I'm always either running 1920x1080, 1280x720 or 1280x1024.
If she was in Jedi Outcast (which is Jedi Knight 2) then I don't remember her, but I was like 12 or something when that game came out (though I did play it a little, I spent much more time on Raven Shield [Rainbow Six]). I'm 17 now (will be 18 later this year) ^_^.
As for my model and the "optimization", if you take a look at the doom guy behind Aurra, he certainly looks a lot higher poly than Aurra, or atleast to me he does. But bah, this model is still around the limit, and compared to the Quake 4 multiplayer Marine, she only has a few more polies than him, and that's probably because she has 5 fingers, not 3 like they do (10 counting the other hand). I HATE the Doom 3 and Quake 4 models, how they don't have individual fingers, it drives me crazy.
BTW, here's the link yet again to her WookiePedia in-case you missed it at the top (or just don't want to scroll back up and find it): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aurra_Sing
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:37 am :
ot: dinky, thanks. this is much easier to read now
imo guys like you and kit89 who is a similar age to you, are very lucky to get into games modding, and or 3d modeling at your age. I've just turned 38 and still have a lot to learn in some of these technical and artistic areas, but when you guys are learning and developing these skills at the rate you are, then by the time your in your mid to late 20's or 30`s you guys should be very skilled and experienced
I now find it difficult to comprehend how limited the computers we had when we were teen agers. one of the first computers I owned, being a 48kb sinclair spectrum, although at the time, home computers with color was ground breaking
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:31 am :
Yeah, young ones in the modding community isn't really TOO common, but it is becoming more common I think. The most important thing, in my opinion, to get younger kids into computer is to get them to play games on PCs rather than Consoles! PC Gaming opens up this whole new world for everyone, because there's not just an online gaming presence that's over a decade old, but there's also of course the amazing modding community. Eventually one thing will lead to another and the kid will soon be installing mods in their games instead of just the vanilla game. Then they'll think that's neat and want to do it themselve's.
But the only reason I got into computers and software like this at all is because of my father. When I was very young he got me into computers. And his first computer, I'm pretty sure was this one right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80. My Father and I are complete opposites though, he's a programmer and I'm an artist. And programming has to be the hardest thing I've ever tried to learn, it was the most difficult thing I had to face during web design was learning Actionscript (Macromedia Flash language). Anything to do with art though and I learn it pretty quick I think.
Oh and the first thing I got into wasn't modding though, it was web design. But I got interested in 3D after that (due to the movies.. I was like 14), THEN I got into modding games. But enough about me, I think PC Gaming is probably one of the best thing any young kid can get into, because it most likely will eventually lead to modding, which will lead to the desire to make mods .
Ok I just realized I sound like Yoda...
Quote:
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 am :
ot: understood and agreed, pc gaming is very important if new people are going to get into the modding scene, that is unless consoles catch up with pc's in the editing software etc.
I've also dabbled a little in coding with the d3 engine, but like you I'm more of an artist so didn't find coding to feel a natural process for me. I also think I'm more at home working with 3d then 2d although I've been working with the latter for decades.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:36 am :
Well I sort-of halfway forgot to make her vest accessories. I didn't really forget.. I kinda just... Skipped it for moment.
Anyway, I did all the front pockets n' stuff, now I just have to do the thing that's on her back, which really isn't all that big of a deal, I won't post it like I am posting these.
All the models are in Sub-D's, which is why they look so smooth ^_^:
Dinky@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:39 am :
I've been working on this character for a little while, and now I'm almost complete with the high res. When I make my models, I first try and make them as low polygon as possible, then send them into ZBrush for detailing. I have not sent this character to ZBrush yet, but I am pretty much done with it in Maya.
But right now, instead of detailing it in ZBrush just yet, I'm making the low poly model for when I put it into Doom 3.
Here she is in polygon form un-smoothed:
Aurra:
Aurra's gun in holster:
Aurra head:
Aurra Sing is a character from Star Wars, she was in the movie (Episode 1) but only a very brief cameo (it lasted like two seconds). But she does have Comic books and I think she's in some novels.
There are a few minor accessories I have to make, which is pockets and stuff on her vest. But that's just too simple and it doesn't matter enough to make it real quick then post screens .
Anyway, hope you like!
kat@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:04 am :
Proportions are generally good, only crit is that her hands look a tad too small? Could do with being may 10-20% larger?
Tron@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:01 am :
I'd say you could probably do a lot less polys on that gun. Look forward to seeing this normal mapped.
Dinky@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 am :
Thanks for comments and critique!
@Kat - Yeah I kinda agree with you on the hands, I'd been thinking about modifying the hands, along with shaping the arms a little bit more before I do more work to the model. Now I think I will modify the hands since now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that area looks a little off.
@Tron - You're probably right in some places, but to be honest it doesn't really matter since it's not going to be included to the final low poly game model. But you should also note that I added a few lines in-case I were to take it into ZBrush with the rest of the model, I wouldn't want certain parts of the gun to get all smoothed and rounded when I divide the entire mesh. But I may not export it to ZBrush with the character, so I could just be wasting poly's like you said.
Last night I did a little bit of the low res mesh but I was a bit too busy and tired tonight to do anything so I'll just save it for tomorrow ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 pm :
dinky, good model so far and cool star wars character you've chosen to work with
I also was thinking her hands looked a little too small, and that a low poly gun could have a lot less polys. other then those I'm wondering if the polys between her crotch and her belt could be smoothed out more, as I think they look too angular at the moment, but maybe its the angle of the screen shot.
last year I started modeling a human male for the first time, and it was a lot harder then I imagined it would to be to get the proportions and edge loops looking right, even with lots of reference images, so I appreciate the work involved involved in modeling a human or non fantasy creature.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:17 am :
@ratty redemption - Yeah, Aurra Sing is one of my favorites . And that's NOT the low poly gun. That gun actually won't be used by the character either, it will just be normal mapped onto a low res version. And the crotch is actually made correctly, because when I divide it into a few million polies in ZBrush (or turn it into Sub-d's) it smooths out properly. If I were to make them straight, then it would just be flat. That area has to look "tucked in", which is what it does right now at the position those edges are.
Anyway, I got a low res completed today, and I put her in-game as a test model. No texture yet but I'll get to that last (after I normal map her). I'll just be texturing the low res, not the high res (though I know Doom 3's Renderbump can transfer textures from high res model to low res).
Here's the screenshot of her in my Doom 3 testing ground map (low res version). It's 2022 triangles, a little high but... Meh.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:57 pm :
Your model high-polycount VS low-polycount zones is a bit strange for me.
look:
In RED zones you put some extra polys to make little details that you will only see to a very close distance (distA), but in the YELLOW zone, you optimized your torso so much that you CAN'T come near to distA and still looking as good as red zones.
Here i think you must remove these extra polys in red zone to add these in the yellow one (to keep a good hips curve).
All these "clothes thickness" polys can be normalmapped without any problem.
That's just some ideas on how i would optimize this model, nothing obligatory of course!
Good luck on your model Dinky.
PS: Isn't "Aurra Sing" the girl character that player control in one of the Jedi Knight extansion?
Rayne@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:42 pm :
those polys are there probably to mantain good looking deformations at animation time.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:43 pm :
dinky, understood and cool
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:00 pm :
@6th Venom - I appreciate you adding your own comments and critique. But I'm aware of everything you just said. As Rayne said, those polies that I added at the knee/ankle/elbows/wrists/shoulders are for animation, and since the torso won't be as extensively animated as the limbs, and even if it is animated it will be subtle and it won't really matter since it's a rather thick part of the model.
If animation points like the elbows/shoulders/ankles/etc. don't get a few more poly's for animation then it will deform VERY unrealistically. But as for the "Jacket" or the "Vest" she's wearing, I am aware that could have been added through normal mapping, but I was afraid that maybe the character silhouette would look strange in-game. Besides, I've tried to normal map similar models in the same way you're talking about, and I got a ridiculously ugly result (or atleast IMO).
And as for Aurra Sing in the Jedi Knight games, I'm not sure. Do you mean Jedi Academy when you say "extansion [expansion?]"?? If you're saying Jedi Academy then no, because I don't EVER remember Aurra Sing in that game. And as far as I've known she's only been in one game, and that's some old N64 game.
And BTW, ratty redemption I'm lovin' your "ratty d3 hell map" wip! Looks great, keep it up.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:41 am :
I used to think modeling terrain was complicated but compared to character modeling, it's relatively straight forward. I also only experimented a little with animating my human model last year, but soon realized I should of built the model from the beginning with edge loops designed for animating, rather then just an acceptable looking static mesh, and as this would of taken more time and effort to fix I put that model on hold, until I had gained more practice with static meshes in blender.
ot: thanks a lot dinky, it's really encouraging to hear some of you guys are still interested in that project of mine, since I haven't worked on it for 3 months, although that was mainly due to moving home and having to use my girlfriends pc until mine was set up, but I'm pretty much back on track again
edit: dinky, would you mind editing the size of your images on this page, as it's forcing some of us to scroll sideways to read all the text. I'm using 1024 width desktop but used to be on 800 which I imagine would require even more side scrolling.
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:59 am :
@Dinky: I think it was the 1st Jedi knight's "expansion" ( ).
And for model itself, i understand that you need extra polies were there are huge deformations, but i'm still sure they are not "optimals", but whatever...
I love the idea to see more women in Doom.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:00 am :
Rezised.
I edited the "Aurra's Head" screenshot, since that was the only one I was having probs with. From now on I'll use ImageShack's thumbnail option. I can't change these to imageshack thumbnails since I don't have their upload page anymore (I should really register there). And I could make thumbnails, but I'm just too lazy. I hope that's good enough for your tiny resolution! I'm always either running 1920x1080, 1280x720 or 1280x1024.
If she was in Jedi Outcast (which is Jedi Knight 2) then I don't remember her, but I was like 12 or something when that game came out (though I did play it a little, I spent much more time on Raven Shield [Rainbow Six]). I'm 17 now (will be 18 later this year) ^_^.
As for my model and the "optimization", if you take a look at the doom guy behind Aurra, he certainly looks a lot higher poly than Aurra, or atleast to me he does. But bah, this model is still around the limit, and compared to the Quake 4 multiplayer Marine, she only has a few more polies than him, and that's probably because she has 5 fingers, not 3 like they do (10 counting the other hand). I HATE the Doom 3 and Quake 4 models, how they don't have individual fingers, it drives me crazy.
BTW, here's the link yet again to her WookiePedia in-case you missed it at the top (or just don't want to scroll back up and find it): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aurra_Sing
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:37 am :
ot: dinky, thanks. this is much easier to read now
imo guys like you and kit89 who is a similar age to you, are very lucky to get into games modding, and or 3d modeling at your age. I've just turned 38 and still have a lot to learn in some of these technical and artistic areas, but when you guys are learning and developing these skills at the rate you are, then by the time your in your mid to late 20's or 30`s you guys should be very skilled and experienced
I now find it difficult to comprehend how limited the computers we had when we were teen agers. one of the first computers I owned, being a 48kb sinclair spectrum, although at the time, home computers with color was ground breaking
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:31 am :
Yeah, young ones in the modding community isn't really TOO common, but it is becoming more common I think. The most important thing, in my opinion, to get younger kids into computer is to get them to play games on PCs rather than Consoles! PC Gaming opens up this whole new world for everyone, because there's not just an online gaming presence that's over a decade old, but there's also of course the amazing modding community. Eventually one thing will lead to another and the kid will soon be installing mods in their games instead of just the vanilla game. Then they'll think that's neat and want to do it themselve's.
But the only reason I got into computers and software like this at all is because of my father. When I was very young he got me into computers. And his first computer, I'm pretty sure was this one right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80. My Father and I are complete opposites though, he's a programmer and I'm an artist. And programming has to be the hardest thing I've ever tried to learn, it was the most difficult thing I had to face during web design was learning Actionscript (Macromedia Flash language). Anything to do with art though and I learn it pretty quick I think.
Oh and the first thing I got into wasn't modding though, it was web design. But I got interested in 3D after that (due to the movies.. I was like 14), THEN I got into modding games. But enough about me, I think PC Gaming is probably one of the best thing any young kid can get into, because it most likely will eventually lead to modding, which will lead to the desire to make mods .
Ok I just realized I sound like Yoda...
Quote:
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 am :
ot: understood and agreed, pc gaming is very important if new people are going to get into the modding scene, that is unless consoles catch up with pc's in the editing software etc.
I've also dabbled a little in coding with the d3 engine, but like you I'm more of an artist so didn't find coding to feel a natural process for me. I also think I'm more at home working with 3d then 2d although I've been working with the latter for decades.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:36 am :
Well I sort-of halfway forgot to make her vest accessories. I didn't really forget.. I kinda just... Skipped it for moment.
Anyway, I did all the front pockets n' stuff, now I just have to do the thing that's on her back, which really isn't all that big of a deal, I won't post it like I am posting these.
All the models are in Sub-D's, which is why they look so smooth ^_^:
Dinky@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:39 am :
I've been working on this character for a little while, and now I'm almost complete with the high res. When I make my models, I first try and make them as low polygon as possible, then send them into ZBrush for detailing. I have not sent this character to ZBrush yet, but I am pretty much done with it in Maya.
But right now, instead of detailing it in ZBrush just yet, I'm making the low poly model for when I put it into Doom 3.
Here she is in polygon form un-smoothed:
Aurra:
Aurra's gun in holster:
Aurra head:
Aurra Sing is a character from Star Wars, she was in the movie (Episode 1) but only a very brief cameo (it lasted like two seconds). But she does have Comic books and I think she's in some novels.
There are a few minor accessories I have to make, which is pockets and stuff on her vest. But that's just too simple and it doesn't matter enough to make it real quick then post screens .
Anyway, hope you like!
kat@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:04 am :
Proportions are generally good, only crit is that her hands look a tad too small? Could do with being may 10-20% larger?
Tron@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:01 am :
I'd say you could probably do a lot less polys on that gun. Look forward to seeing this normal mapped.
Dinky@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 am :
Thanks for comments and critique!
@Kat - Yeah I kinda agree with you on the hands, I'd been thinking about modifying the hands, along with shaping the arms a little bit more before I do more work to the model. Now I think I will modify the hands since now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that area looks a little off.
@Tron - You're probably right in some places, but to be honest it doesn't really matter since it's not going to be included to the final low poly game model. But you should also note that I added a few lines in-case I were to take it into ZBrush with the rest of the model, I wouldn't want certain parts of the gun to get all smoothed and rounded when I divide the entire mesh. But I may not export it to ZBrush with the character, so I could just be wasting poly's like you said.
Last night I did a little bit of the low res mesh but I was a bit too busy and tired tonight to do anything so I'll just save it for tomorrow ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 pm :
dinky, good model so far and cool star wars character you've chosen to work with
I also was thinking her hands looked a little too small, and that a low poly gun could have a lot less polys. other then those I'm wondering if the polys between her crotch and her belt could be smoothed out more, as I think they look too angular at the moment, but maybe its the angle of the screen shot.
last year I started modeling a human male for the first time, and it was a lot harder then I imagined it would to be to get the proportions and edge loops looking right, even with lots of reference images, so I appreciate the work involved involved in modeling a human or non fantasy creature.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:17 am :
@ratty redemption - Yeah, Aurra Sing is one of my favorites . And that's NOT the low poly gun. That gun actually won't be used by the character either, it will just be normal mapped onto a low res version. And the crotch is actually made correctly, because when I divide it into a few million polies in ZBrush (or turn it into Sub-d's) it smooths out properly. If I were to make them straight, then it would just be flat. That area has to look "tucked in", which is what it does right now at the position those edges are.
Anyway, I got a low res completed today, and I put her in-game as a test model. No texture yet but I'll get to that last (after I normal map her). I'll just be texturing the low res, not the high res (though I know Doom 3's Renderbump can transfer textures from high res model to low res).
Here's the screenshot of her in my Doom 3 testing ground map (low res version). It's 2022 triangles, a little high but... Meh.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:57 pm :
Your model high-polycount VS low-polycount zones is a bit strange for me.
look:
In RED zones you put some extra polys to make little details that you will only see to a very close distance (distA), but in the YELLOW zone, you optimized your torso so much that you CAN'T come near to distA and still looking as good as red zones.
Here i think you must remove these extra polys in red zone to add these in the yellow one (to keep a good hips curve).
All these "clothes thickness" polys can be normalmapped without any problem.
That's just some ideas on how i would optimize this model, nothing obligatory of course!
Good luck on your model Dinky.
PS: Isn't "Aurra Sing" the girl character that player control in one of the Jedi Knight extansion?
Rayne@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:42 pm :
those polys are there probably to mantain good looking deformations at animation time.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:43 pm :
dinky, understood and cool
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:00 pm :
@6th Venom - I appreciate you adding your own comments and critique. But I'm aware of everything you just said. As Rayne said, those polies that I added at the knee/ankle/elbows/wrists/shoulders are for animation, and since the torso won't be as extensively animated as the limbs, and even if it is animated it will be subtle and it won't really matter since it's a rather thick part of the model.
If animation points like the elbows/shoulders/ankles/etc. don't get a few more poly's for animation then it will deform VERY unrealistically. But as for the "Jacket" or the "Vest" she's wearing, I am aware that could have been added through normal mapping, but I was afraid that maybe the character silhouette would look strange in-game. Besides, I've tried to normal map similar models in the same way you're talking about, and I got a ridiculously ugly result (or atleast IMO).
And as for Aurra Sing in the Jedi Knight games, I'm not sure. Do you mean Jedi Academy when you say "extansion [expansion?]"?? If you're saying Jedi Academy then no, because I don't EVER remember Aurra Sing in that game. And as far as I've known she's only been in one game, and that's some old N64 game.
And BTW, ratty redemption I'm lovin' your "ratty d3 hell map" wip! Looks great, keep it up.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:41 am :
I used to think modeling terrain was complicated but compared to character modeling, it's relatively straight forward. I also only experimented a little with animating my human model last year, but soon realized I should of built the model from the beginning with edge loops designed for animating, rather then just an acceptable looking static mesh, and as this would of taken more time and effort to fix I put that model on hold, until I had gained more practice with static meshes in blender.
ot: thanks a lot dinky, it's really encouraging to hear some of you guys are still interested in that project of mine, since I haven't worked on it for 3 months, although that was mainly due to moving home and having to use my girlfriends pc until mine was set up, but I'm pretty much back on track again
edit: dinky, would you mind editing the size of your images on this page, as it's forcing some of us to scroll sideways to read all the text. I'm using 1024 width desktop but used to be on 800 which I imagine would require even more side scrolling.
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:59 am :
@Dinky: I think it was the 1st Jedi knight's "expansion" ( ).
And for model itself, i understand that you need extra polies were there are huge deformations, but i'm still sure they are not "optimals", but whatever...
I love the idea to see more women in Doom.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:00 am :
Rezised.
I edited the "Aurra's Head" screenshot, since that was the only one I was having probs with. From now on I'll use ImageShack's thumbnail option. I can't change these to imageshack thumbnails since I don't have their upload page anymore (I should really register there). And I could make thumbnails, but I'm just too lazy. I hope that's good enough for your tiny resolution! I'm always either running 1920x1080, 1280x720 or 1280x1024.
If she was in Jedi Outcast (which is Jedi Knight 2) then I don't remember her, but I was like 12 or something when that game came out (though I did play it a little, I spent much more time on Raven Shield [Rainbow Six]). I'm 17 now (will be 18 later this year) ^_^.
As for my model and the "optimization", if you take a look at the doom guy behind Aurra, he certainly looks a lot higher poly than Aurra, or atleast to me he does. But bah, this model is still around the limit, and compared to the Quake 4 multiplayer Marine, she only has a few more polies than him, and that's probably because she has 5 fingers, not 3 like they do (10 counting the other hand). I HATE the Doom 3 and Quake 4 models, how they don't have individual fingers, it drives me crazy.
BTW, here's the link yet again to her WookiePedia in-case you missed it at the top (or just don't want to scroll back up and find it): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aurra_Sing
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:37 am :
ot: dinky, thanks. this is much easier to read now
imo guys like you and kit89 who is a similar age to you, are very lucky to get into games modding, and or 3d modeling at your age. I've just turned 38 and still have a lot to learn in some of these technical and artistic areas, but when you guys are learning and developing these skills at the rate you are, then by the time your in your mid to late 20's or 30`s you guys should be very skilled and experienced
I now find it difficult to comprehend how limited the computers we had when we were teen agers. one of the first computers I owned, being a 48kb sinclair spectrum, although at the time, home computers with color was ground breaking
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:31 am :
Yeah, young ones in the modding community isn't really TOO common, but it is becoming more common I think. The most important thing, in my opinion, to get younger kids into computer is to get them to play games on PCs rather than Consoles! PC Gaming opens up this whole new world for everyone, because there's not just an online gaming presence that's over a decade old, but there's also of course the amazing modding community. Eventually one thing will lead to another and the kid will soon be installing mods in their games instead of just the vanilla game. Then they'll think that's neat and want to do it themselve's.
But the only reason I got into computers and software like this at all is because of my father. When I was very young he got me into computers. And his first computer, I'm pretty sure was this one right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80. My Father and I are complete opposites though, he's a programmer and I'm an artist. And programming has to be the hardest thing I've ever tried to learn, it was the most difficult thing I had to face during web design was learning Actionscript (Macromedia Flash language). Anything to do with art though and I learn it pretty quick I think.
Oh and the first thing I got into wasn't modding though, it was web design. But I got interested in 3D after that (due to the movies.. I was like 14), THEN I got into modding games. But enough about me, I think PC Gaming is probably one of the best thing any young kid can get into, because it most likely will eventually lead to modding, which will lead to the desire to make mods .
Ok I just realized I sound like Yoda...
Quote:
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 am :
ot: understood and agreed, pc gaming is very important if new people are going to get into the modding scene, that is unless consoles catch up with pc's in the editing software etc.
I've also dabbled a little in coding with the d3 engine, but like you I'm more of an artist so didn't find coding to feel a natural process for me. I also think I'm more at home working with 3d then 2d although I've been working with the latter for decades.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:36 am :
Well I sort-of halfway forgot to make her vest accessories. I didn't really forget.. I kinda just... Skipped it for moment.
Anyway, I did all the front pockets n' stuff, now I just have to do the thing that's on her back, which really isn't all that big of a deal, I won't post it like I am posting these.
All the models are in Sub-D's, which is why they look so smooth ^_^:
Dinky@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:39 am :
I've been working on this character for a little while, and now I'm almost complete with the high res. When I make my models, I first try and make them as low polygon as possible, then send them into ZBrush for detailing. I have not sent this character to ZBrush yet, but I am pretty much done with it in Maya.
But right now, instead of detailing it in ZBrush just yet, I'm making the low poly model for when I put it into Doom 3.
Here she is in polygon form un-smoothed:
Aurra:
Aurra's gun in holster:
Aurra head:
Aurra Sing is a character from Star Wars, she was in the movie (Episode 1) but only a very brief cameo (it lasted like two seconds). But she does have Comic books and I think she's in some novels.
There are a few minor accessories I have to make, which is pockets and stuff on her vest. But that's just too simple and it doesn't matter enough to make it real quick then post screens .
Anyway, hope you like!
kat@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:04 am :
Proportions are generally good, only crit is that her hands look a tad too small? Could do with being may 10-20% larger?
Tron@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:01 am :
I'd say you could probably do a lot less polys on that gun. Look forward to seeing this normal mapped.
Dinky@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 am :
Thanks for comments and critique!
@Kat - Yeah I kinda agree with you on the hands, I'd been thinking about modifying the hands, along with shaping the arms a little bit more before I do more work to the model. Now I think I will modify the hands since now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that area looks a little off.
@Tron - You're probably right in some places, but to be honest it doesn't really matter since it's not going to be included to the final low poly game model. But you should also note that I added a few lines in-case I were to take it into ZBrush with the rest of the model, I wouldn't want certain parts of the gun to get all smoothed and rounded when I divide the entire mesh. But I may not export it to ZBrush with the character, so I could just be wasting poly's like you said.
Last night I did a little bit of the low res mesh but I was a bit too busy and tired tonight to do anything so I'll just save it for tomorrow ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 pm :
dinky, good model so far and cool star wars character you've chosen to work with
I also was thinking her hands looked a little too small, and that a low poly gun could have a lot less polys. other then those I'm wondering if the polys between her crotch and her belt could be smoothed out more, as I think they look too angular at the moment, but maybe its the angle of the screen shot.
last year I started modeling a human male for the first time, and it was a lot harder then I imagined it would to be to get the proportions and edge loops looking right, even with lots of reference images, so I appreciate the work involved involved in modeling a human or non fantasy creature.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:17 am :
@ratty redemption - Yeah, Aurra Sing is one of my favorites . And that's NOT the low poly gun. That gun actually won't be used by the character either, it will just be normal mapped onto a low res version. And the crotch is actually made correctly, because when I divide it into a few million polies in ZBrush (or turn it into Sub-d's) it smooths out properly. If I were to make them straight, then it would just be flat. That area has to look "tucked in", which is what it does right now at the position those edges are.
Anyway, I got a low res completed today, and I put her in-game as a test model. No texture yet but I'll get to that last (after I normal map her). I'll just be texturing the low res, not the high res (though I know Doom 3's Renderbump can transfer textures from high res model to low res).
Here's the screenshot of her in my Doom 3 testing ground map (low res version). It's 2022 triangles, a little high but... Meh.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:57 pm :
Your model high-polycount VS low-polycount zones is a bit strange for me.
look:
In RED zones you put some extra polys to make little details that you will only see to a very close distance (distA), but in the YELLOW zone, you optimized your torso so much that you CAN'T come near to distA and still looking as good as red zones.
Here i think you must remove these extra polys in red zone to add these in the yellow one (to keep a good hips curve).
All these "clothes thickness" polys can be normalmapped without any problem.
That's just some ideas on how i would optimize this model, nothing obligatory of course!
Good luck on your model Dinky.
PS: Isn't "Aurra Sing" the girl character that player control in one of the Jedi Knight extansion?
Rayne@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:42 pm :
those polys are there probably to mantain good looking deformations at animation time.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:43 pm :
dinky, understood and cool
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:00 pm :
@6th Venom - I appreciate you adding your own comments and critique. But I'm aware of everything you just said. As Rayne said, those polies that I added at the knee/ankle/elbows/wrists/shoulders are for animation, and since the torso won't be as extensively animated as the limbs, and even if it is animated it will be subtle and it won't really matter since it's a rather thick part of the model.
If animation points like the elbows/shoulders/ankles/etc. don't get a few more poly's for animation then it will deform VERY unrealistically. But as for the "Jacket" or the "Vest" she's wearing, I am aware that could have been added through normal mapping, but I was afraid that maybe the character silhouette would look strange in-game. Besides, I've tried to normal map similar models in the same way you're talking about, and I got a ridiculously ugly result (or atleast IMO).
And as for Aurra Sing in the Jedi Knight games, I'm not sure. Do you mean Jedi Academy when you say "extansion [expansion?]"?? If you're saying Jedi Academy then no, because I don't EVER remember Aurra Sing in that game. And as far as I've known she's only been in one game, and that's some old N64 game.
And BTW, ratty redemption I'm lovin' your "ratty d3 hell map" wip! Looks great, keep it up.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:41 am :
I used to think modeling terrain was complicated but compared to character modeling, it's relatively straight forward. I also only experimented a little with animating my human model last year, but soon realized I should of built the model from the beginning with edge loops designed for animating, rather then just an acceptable looking static mesh, and as this would of taken more time and effort to fix I put that model on hold, until I had gained more practice with static meshes in blender.
ot: thanks a lot dinky, it's really encouraging to hear some of you guys are still interested in that project of mine, since I haven't worked on it for 3 months, although that was mainly due to moving home and having to use my girlfriends pc until mine was set up, but I'm pretty much back on track again
edit: dinky, would you mind editing the size of your images on this page, as it's forcing some of us to scroll sideways to read all the text. I'm using 1024 width desktop but used to be on 800 which I imagine would require even more side scrolling.
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:59 am :
@Dinky: I think it was the 1st Jedi knight's "expansion" ( ).
And for model itself, i understand that you need extra polies were there are huge deformations, but i'm still sure they are not "optimals", but whatever...
I love the idea to see more women in Doom.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:00 am :
Rezised.
I edited the "Aurra's Head" screenshot, since that was the only one I was having probs with. From now on I'll use ImageShack's thumbnail option. I can't change these to imageshack thumbnails since I don't have their upload page anymore (I should really register there). And I could make thumbnails, but I'm just too lazy. I hope that's good enough for your tiny resolution! I'm always either running 1920x1080, 1280x720 or 1280x1024.
If she was in Jedi Outcast (which is Jedi Knight 2) then I don't remember her, but I was like 12 or something when that game came out (though I did play it a little, I spent much more time on Raven Shield [Rainbow Six]). I'm 17 now (will be 18 later this year) ^_^.
As for my model and the "optimization", if you take a look at the doom guy behind Aurra, he certainly looks a lot higher poly than Aurra, or atleast to me he does. But bah, this model is still around the limit, and compared to the Quake 4 multiplayer Marine, she only has a few more polies than him, and that's probably because she has 5 fingers, not 3 like they do (10 counting the other hand). I HATE the Doom 3 and Quake 4 models, how they don't have individual fingers, it drives me crazy.
BTW, here's the link yet again to her WookiePedia in-case you missed it at the top (or just don't want to scroll back up and find it): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aurra_Sing
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:37 am :
ot: dinky, thanks. this is much easier to read now
imo guys like you and kit89 who is a similar age to you, are very lucky to get into games modding, and or 3d modeling at your age. I've just turned 38 and still have a lot to learn in some of these technical and artistic areas, but when you guys are learning and developing these skills at the rate you are, then by the time your in your mid to late 20's or 30`s you guys should be very skilled and experienced
I now find it difficult to comprehend how limited the computers we had when we were teen agers. one of the first computers I owned, being a 48kb sinclair spectrum, although at the time, home computers with color was ground breaking
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:31 am :
Yeah, young ones in the modding community isn't really TOO common, but it is becoming more common I think. The most important thing, in my opinion, to get younger kids into computer is to get them to play games on PCs rather than Consoles! PC Gaming opens up this whole new world for everyone, because there's not just an online gaming presence that's over a decade old, but there's also of course the amazing modding community. Eventually one thing will lead to another and the kid will soon be installing mods in their games instead of just the vanilla game. Then they'll think that's neat and want to do it themselve's.
But the only reason I got into computers and software like this at all is because of my father. When I was very young he got me into computers. And his first computer, I'm pretty sure was this one right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80. My Father and I are complete opposites though, he's a programmer and I'm an artist. And programming has to be the hardest thing I've ever tried to learn, it was the most difficult thing I had to face during web design was learning Actionscript (Macromedia Flash language). Anything to do with art though and I learn it pretty quick I think.
Oh and the first thing I got into wasn't modding though, it was web design. But I got interested in 3D after that (due to the movies.. I was like 14), THEN I got into modding games. But enough about me, I think PC Gaming is probably one of the best thing any young kid can get into, because it most likely will eventually lead to modding, which will lead to the desire to make mods .
Ok I just realized I sound like Yoda...
Quote:
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 am :
ot: understood and agreed, pc gaming is very important if new people are going to get into the modding scene, that is unless consoles catch up with pc's in the editing software etc.
I've also dabbled a little in coding with the d3 engine, but like you I'm more of an artist so didn't find coding to feel a natural process for me. I also think I'm more at home working with 3d then 2d although I've been working with the latter for decades.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:36 am :
Well I sort-of halfway forgot to make her vest accessories. I didn't really forget.. I kinda just... Skipped it for moment.
Anyway, I did all t
Dinky@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:39 am :
I've been working on this character for a little while, and now I'm almost complete with the high res. When I make my models, I first try and make them as low polygon as possible, then send them into ZBrush for detailing. I have not sent this character to ZBrush yet, but I am pretty much done with it in Maya.
But right now, instead of detailing it in ZBrush just yet, I'm making the low poly model for when I put it into Doom 3.
Here she is in polygon form un-smoothed:
Aurra:
Aurra's gun in holster:
Aurra head:
Aurra Sing is a character from Star Wars, she was in the movie (Episode 1) but only a very brief cameo (it lasted like two seconds). But she does have Comic books and I think she's in some novels.
There are a few minor accessories I have to make, which is pockets and stuff on her vest. But that's just too simple and it doesn't matter enough to make it real quick then post screens .
Anyway, hope you like!
kat@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:04 am :
Proportions are generally good, only crit is that her hands look a tad too small? Could do with being may 10-20% larger?
Tron@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:01 am :
I'd say you could probably do a lot less polys on that gun. Look forward to seeing this normal mapped.
Dinky@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 am :
Thanks for comments and critique!
@Kat - Yeah I kinda agree with you on the hands, I'd been thinking about modifying the hands, along with shaping the arms a little bit more before I do more work to the model. Now I think I will modify the hands since now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that area looks a little off.
@Tron - You're probably right in some places, but to be honest it doesn't really matter since it's not going to be included to the final low poly game model. But you should also note that I added a few lines in-case I were to take it into ZBrush with the rest of the model, I wouldn't want certain parts of the gun to get all smoothed and rounded when I divide the entire mesh. But I may not export it to ZBrush with the character, so I could just be wasting poly's like you said.
Last night I did a little bit of the low res mesh but I was a bit too busy and tired tonight to do anything so I'll just save it for tomorrow ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 pm :
dinky, good model so far and cool star wars character you've chosen to work with
I also was thinking her hands looked a little too small, and that a low poly gun could have a lot less polys. other then those I'm wondering if the polys between her crotch and her belt could be smoothed out more, as I think they look too angular at the moment, but maybe its the angle of the screen shot.
last year I started modeling a human male for the first time, and it was a lot harder then I imagined it would to be to get the proportions and edge loops looking right, even with lots of reference images, so I appreciate the work involved involved in modeling a human or non fantasy creature.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:17 am :
@ratty redemption - Yeah, Aurra Sing is one of my favorites . And that's NOT the low poly gun. That gun actually won't be used by the character either, it will just be normal mapped onto a low res version. And the crotch is actually made correctly, because when I divide it into a few million polies in ZBrush (or turn it into Sub-d's) it smooths out properly. If I were to make them straight, then it would just be flat. That area has to look "tucked in", which is what it does right now at the position those edges are.
Anyway, I got a low res completed today, and I put her in-game as a test model. No texture yet but I'll get to that last (after I normal map her). I'll just be texturing the low res, not the high res (though I know Doom 3's Renderbump can transfer textures from high res model to low res).
Here's the screenshot of her in my Doom 3 testing ground map (low res version). It's 2022 triangles, a little high but... Meh.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:57 pm :
Your model high-polycount VS low-polycount zones is a bit strange for me.
look:
In RED zones you put some extra polys to make little details that you will only see to a very close distance (distA), but in the YELLOW zone, you optimized your torso so much that you CAN'T come near to distA and still looking as good as red zones.
Here i think you must remove these extra polys in red zone to add these in the yellow one (to keep a good hips curve).
All these "clothes thickness" polys can be normalmapped without any problem.
That's just some ideas on how i would optimize this model, nothing obligatory of course!
Good luck on your model Dinky.
PS: Isn't "Aurra Sing" the girl character that player control in one of the Jedi Knight extansion?
Rayne@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:42 pm :
those polys are there probably to mantain good looking deformations at animation time.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:43 pm :
dinky, understood and cool
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:00 pm :
@6th Venom - I appreciate you adding your own comments and critique. But I'm aware of everything you just said. As Rayne said, those polies that I added at the knee/ankle/elbows/wrists/shoulders are for animation, and since the torso won't be as extensively animated as the limbs, and even if it is animated it will be subtle and it won't really matter since it's a rather thick part of the model.
If animation points like the elbows/shoulders/ankles/etc. don't get a few more poly's for animation then it will deform VERY unrealistically. But as for the "Jacket" or the "Vest" she's wearing, I am aware that could have been added through normal mapping, but I was afraid that maybe the character silhouette would look strange in-game. Besides, I've tried to normal map similar models in the same way you're talking about, and I got a ridiculously ugly result (or atleast IMO).
And as for Aurra Sing in the Jedi Knight games, I'm not sure. Do you mean Jedi Academy when you say "extansion [expansion?]"?? If you're saying Jedi Academy then no, because I don't EVER remember Aurra Sing in that game. And as far as I've known she's only been in one game, and that's some old N64 game.
And BTW, ratty redemption I'm lovin' your "ratty d3 hell map" wip! Looks great, keep it up.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:41 am :
I used to think modeling terrain was complicated but compared to character modeling, it's relatively straight forward. I also only experimented a little with animating my human model last year, but soon realized I should of built the model from the beginning with edge loops designed for animating, rather then just an acceptable looking static mesh, and as this would of taken more time and effort to fix I put that model on hold, until I had gained more practice with static meshes in blender.
ot: thanks a lot dinky, it's really encouraging to hear some of you guys are still interested in that project of mine, since I haven't worked on it for 3 months, although that was mainly due to moving home and having to use my girlfriends pc until mine was set up, but I'm pretty much back on track again
edit: dinky, would you mind editing the size of your images on this page, as it's forcing some of us to scroll sideways to read all the text. I'm using 1024 width desktop but used to be on 800 which I imagine would require even more side scrolling.
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:59 am :
@Dinky: I think it was the 1st Jedi knight's "expansion" ( ).
And for model itself, i understand that you need extra polies were there are huge deformations, but i'm still sure they are not "optimals", but whatever...
I love the idea to see more women in Doom.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:00 am :
Rezised.
I edited the "Aurra's Head" screenshot, since that was the only one I was having probs with. From now on I'll use ImageShack's thumbnail option. I can't change these to imageshack thumbnails since I don't have their upload page anymore (I should really register there). And I could make thumbnails, but I'm just too lazy. I hope that's good enough for your tiny resolution! I'm always either running 1920x1080, 1280x720 or 1280x1024.
If she was in Jedi Outcast (which is Jedi Knight 2) then I don't remember her, but I was like 12 or something when that game came out (though I did play it a little, I spent much more time on Raven Shield [Rainbow Six]). I'm 17 now (will be 18 later this year) ^_^.
As for my model and the "optimization", if you take a look at the doom guy behind Aurra, he certainly looks a lot higher poly than Aurra, or atleast to me he does. But bah, this model is still around the limit, and compared to the Quake 4 multiplayer Marine, she only has a few more polies than him, and that's probably because she has 5 fingers, not 3 like they do (10 counting the other hand). I HATE the Doom 3 and Quake 4 models, how they don't have individual fingers, it drives me crazy.
BTW, here's the link yet again to her WookiePedia in-case you missed it at the top (or just don't want to scroll back up and find it): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aurra_Sing
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:37 am :
ot: dinky, thanks. this is much easier to read now
imo guys like you and kit89 who is a similar age to you, are very lucky to get into games modding, and or 3d modeling at your age. I've just turned 38 and still have a lot to learn in some of these technical and artistic areas, but when you guys are learning and developing these skills at the rate you are, then by the time your in your mid to late 20's or 30`s you guys should be very skilled and experienced
I now find it difficult to comprehend how limited the computers we had when we were teen agers. one of the first computers I owned, being a 48kb sinclair spectrum, although at the time, home computers with color was ground breaking
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:31 am :
Yeah, young ones in the modding community isn't really TOO common, but it is becoming more common I think. The most important thing, in my opinion, to get younger kids into computer is to get them to play games on PCs rather than Consoles! PC Gaming opens up this whole new world for everyone, because there's not just an online gaming presence that's over a decade old, but there's also of course the amazing modding community. Eventually one thing will lead to another and the kid will soon be installing mods in their games instead of just the vanilla game. Then they'll think that's neat and want to do it themselve's.
But the only reason I got into computers and software like this at all is because of my father. When I was very young he got me into computers. And his first computer, I'm pretty sure was this one right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80. My Father and I are complete opposites though, he's a programmer and I'm an artist. And programming has to be the hardest thing I've ever tried to learn, it was the most difficult thing I had to face during web design was learning Actionscript (Macromedia Flash language). Anything to do with art though and I learn it pretty quick I think.
Oh and the first thing I got into wasn't modding though, it was web design. But I got interested in 3D after that (due to the movies.. I was like 14), THEN I got into modding games. But enough about me, I think PC Gaming is probably one of the best thing any young kid can get into, because it most likely will eventually lead to modding, which will lead to the desire to make mods .
Ok I just realized I sound like Yoda...
Quote:
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 am :
ot: understood and agreed, pc gaming is very important if new people are going to get into the modding scene, that is unless consoles catch up with pc's in the editing software etc.
I've also dabbled a little in coding with the d3 engine, but like you I'm more of an artist so didn't find coding to feel a natural process for me. I also think I'm more at home working with 3d then 2d although I've been working with the latter for decades.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:36 am :
Well I sort-of halfway forgot to make her vest accessories. I didn't really forget.. I kinda just... Skipped it for moment.
Anyway, I did all the front pockets n' stuff, now I just have to do the thing that's on her back, which really isn't all that big of a deal, I won't post it like I am posting these.
All the models are in Sub-D's, which is why they look so smooth ^_^:
Dinky@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:39 am :
I've been working on this character for a little while, and now I'm almost complete with the high res. When I make my models, I first try and make them as low polygon as possible, then send them into ZBrush for detailing. I have not sent this character to ZBrush yet, but I am pretty much done with it in Maya.
But right now, instead of detailing it in ZBrush just yet, I'm making the low poly model for when I put it into Doom 3.
Here she is in polygon form un-smoothed:
Aurra:
Aurra's gun in holster:
Aurra head:
Aurra Sing is a character from Star Wars, she was in the movie (Episode 1) but only a very brief cameo (it lasted like two seconds). But she does have Comic books and I think she's in some novels.
There are a few minor accessories I have to make, which is pockets and stuff on her vest. But that's just too simple and it doesn't matter enough to make it real quick then post screens .
Anyway, hope you like!
kat@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:04 am :
Proportions are generally good, only crit is that her hands look a tad too small? Could do with being may 10-20% larger?
Tron@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:01 am :
I'd say you could probably do a lot less polys on that gun. Look forward to seeing this normal mapped.
Dinky@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 am :
Thanks for comments and critique!
@Kat - Yeah I kinda agree with you on the hands, I'd been thinking about modifying the hands, along with shaping the arms a little bit more before I do more work to the model. Now I think I will modify the hands since now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that area looks a little off.
@Tron - You're probably right in some places, but to be honest it doesn't really matter since it's not going to be included to the final low poly game model. But you should also note that I added a few lines in-case I were to take it into ZBrush with the rest of the model, I wouldn't want certain parts of the gun to get all smoothed and rounded when I divide the entire mesh. But I may not export it to ZBrush with the character, so I could just be wasting poly's like you said.
Last night I did a little bit of the low res mesh but I was a bit too busy and tired tonight to do anything so I'll just save it for tomorrow ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 pm :
dinky, good model so far and cool star wars character you've chosen to work with
I also was thinking her hands looked a little too small, and that a low poly gun could have a lot less polys. other then those I'm wondering if the polys between her crotch and her belt could be smoothed out more, as I think they look too angular at the moment, but maybe its the angle of the screen shot.
last year I started modeling a human male for the first time, and it was a lot harder then I imagined it would to be to get the proportions and edge loops looking right, even with lots of reference images, so I appreciate the work involved involved in modeling a human or non fantasy creature.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:17 am :
@ratty redemption - Yeah, Aurra Sing is one of my favorites . And that's NOT the low poly gun. That gun actually won't be used by the character either, it will just be normal mapped onto a low res version. And the crotch is actually made correctly, because when I divide it into a few million polies in ZBrush (or turn it into Sub-d's) it smooths out properly. If I were to make them straight, then it would just be flat. That area has to look "tucked in", which is what it does right now at the position those edges are.
Anyway, I got a low res completed today, and I put her in-game as a test model. No texture yet but I'll get to that last (after I normal map her). I'll just be texturing the low res, not the high res (though I know Doom 3's Renderbump can transfer textures from high res model to low res).
Here's the screenshot of her in my Doom 3 testing ground map (low res version). It's 2022 triangles, a little high but... Meh.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:57 pm :
Your model high-polycount VS low-polycount zones is a bit strange for me.
look:
In RED zones you put some extra polys to make little details that you will only see to a very close distance (distA), but in the YELLOW zone, you optimized your torso so much that you CAN'T come near to distA and still looking as good as red zones.
Here i think you must remove these extra polys in red zone to add these in the yellow one (to keep a good hips curve).
All these "clothes thickness" polys can be normalmapped without any problem.
That's just some ideas on how i would optimize this model, nothing obligatory of course!
Good luck on your model Dinky.
PS: Isn't "Aurra Sing" the girl character that player control in one of the Jedi Knight extansion?
Rayne@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:42 pm :
those polys are there probably to mantain good looking deformations at animation time.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:43 pm :
dinky, understood and cool
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:00 pm :
@6th Venom - I appreciate you adding your own comments and critique. But I'm aware of everything you just said. As Rayne said, those polies that I added at the knee/ankle/elbows/wrists/shoulders are for animation, and since the torso won't be as extensively animated as the limbs, and even if it is animated it will be subtle and it won't really matter since it's a rather thick part of the model.
If animation points like the elbows/shoulders/ankles/etc. don't get a few more poly's for animation then it will deform VERY unrealistically. But as for the "Jacket" or the "Vest" she's wearing, I am aware that could have been added through normal mapping, but I was afraid that maybe the character silhouette would look strange in-game. Besides, I've tried to normal map similar models in the same way you're talking about, and I got a ridiculously ugly result (or atleast IMO).
And as for Aurra Sing in the Jedi Knight games, I'm not sure. Do you mean Jedi Academy when you say "extansion [expansion?]"?? If you're saying Jedi Academy then no, because I don't EVER remember Aurra Sing in that game. And as far as I've known she's only been in one game, and that's some old N64 game.
And BTW, ratty redemption I'm lovin' your "ratty d3 hell map" wip! Looks great, keep it up.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:41 am :
I used to think modeling terrain was complicated but compared to character modeling, it's relatively straight forward. I also only experimented a little with animating my human model last year, but soon realized I should of built the model from the beginning with edge loops designed for animating, rather then just an acceptable looking static mesh, and as this would of taken more time and effort to fix I put that model on hold, until I had gained more practice with static meshes in blender.
ot: thanks a lot dinky, it's really encouraging to hear some of you guys are still interested in that project of mine, since I haven't worked on it for 3 months, although that was mainly due to moving home and having to use my girlfriends pc until mine was set up, but I'm pretty much back on track again
edit: dinky, would you mind editing the size of your images on this page, as it's forcing some of us to scroll sideways to read all the text. I'm using 1024 width desktop but used to be on 800 which I imagine would require even more side scrolling.
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:59 am :
@Dinky: I think it was the 1st Jedi knight's "expansion" ( ).
And for model itself, i understand that you need extra polies were there are huge deformations, but i'm still sure they are not "optimals", but whatever...
I love the idea to see more women in Doom.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:00 am :
Rezised.
I edited the "Aurra's Head" screenshot, since that was the only one I was having probs with. From now on I'll use ImageShack's thumbnail option. I can't change these to imageshack thumbnails since I don't have their upload page anymore (I should really register there). And I could make thumbnails, but I'm just too lazy. I hope that's good enough for your tiny resolution! I'm always either running 1920x1080, 1280x720 or 1280x1024.
If she was in Jedi Outcast (which is Jedi Knight 2) then I don't remember her, but I was like 12 or something when that game came out (though I did play it a little, I spent much more time on Raven Shield [Rainbow Six]). I'm 17 now (will be 18 later this year) ^_^.
As for my model and the "optimization", if you take a look at the doom guy behind Aurra, he certainly looks a lot higher poly than Aurra, or atleast to me he does. But bah, this model is still around the limit, and compared to the Quake 4 multiplayer Marine, she only has a few more polies than him, and that's probably because she has 5 fingers, not 3 like they do (10 counting the other hand). I HATE the Doom 3 and Quake 4 models, how they don't have individual fingers, it drives me crazy.
BTW, here's the link yet again to her WookiePedia in-case you missed it at the top (or just don't want to scroll back up and find it): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aurra_Sing
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:37 am :
ot: dinky, thanks. this is much easier to read now
imo guys like you and kit89 who is a similar age to you, are very lucky to get into games modding, and or 3d modeling at your age. I've just turned 38 and still have a lot to learn in some of these technical and artistic areas, but when you guys are learning and developing these skills at the rate you are, then by the time your in your mid to late 20's or 30`s you guys should be very skilled and experienced
I now find it difficult to comprehend how limited the computers we had when we were teen agers. one of the first computers I owned, being a 48kb sinclair spectrum, although at the time, home computers with color was ground breaking
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:31 am :
Yeah, young ones in the modding community isn't really TOO common, but it is becoming more common I think. The most important thing, in my opinion, to get younger kids into computer is to get them to play games on PCs rather than Consoles! PC Gaming opens up this whole new world for everyone, because there's not just an online gaming presence that's over a decade old, but there's also of course the amazing modding community. Eventually one thing will lead to another and the kid will soon be installing mods in their games instead of just the vanilla game. Then they'll think that's neat and want to do it themselve's.
But the only reason I got into computers and software like this at all is because of my father. When I was very young he got me into computers. And his first computer, I'm pretty sure was this one right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80. My Father and I are complete opposites though, he's a programmer and I'm an artist. And programming has to be the hardest thing I've ever tried to learn, it was the most difficult thing I had to face during web design was learning Actionscript (Macromedia Flash language). Anything to do with art though and I learn it pretty quick I think.
Oh and the first thing I got into wasn't modding though, it was web design. But I got interested in 3D after that (due to the movies.. I was like 14), THEN I got into modding games. But enough about me, I think PC Gaming is probably one of the best thing any young kid can get into, because it most likely will eventually lead to modding, which will lead to the desire to make mods .
Ok I just realized I sound like Yoda...
Quote:
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 am :
ot: understood and agreed, pc gaming is very important if new people are going to get into the modding scene, that is unless consoles catch up with pc's in the editing software etc.
I've also dabbled a little in coding with the d3 engine, but like you I'm more of an artist so didn't find coding to feel a natural process for me. I also think I'm more at home working with 3d then 2d although I've been working with the latter for decades.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:36 am :
Well I sort-of halfway forgot to make her vest accessories. I didn't really forget.. I kinda just... Skipped it for moment.
Anyway, I did all the front pockets n' stuff, now I just have to do the thing that's on her back, which really isn't all that big of a deal, I won't post it like I am posting these.
All the models are in Sub-D's, which is why they look so smooth ^_^:
Dinky@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:39 am :
I've been working on this character for a little while, and now I'm almost complete with the high res. When I make my models, I first try and make them as low polygon as possible, then send them into ZBrush for detailing. I have not sent this character to ZBrush yet, but I am pretty much done with it in Maya.
But right now, instead of detailing it in ZBrush just yet, I'm making the low poly model for when I put it into Doom 3.
Here she is in polygon form un-smoothed:
Aurra:
Aurra's gun in holster:
Aurra head:
Aurra Sing is a character from Star Wars, she was in the movie (Episode 1) but only a very brief cameo (it lasted like two seconds). But she does have Comic books and I think she's in some novels.
There are a few minor accessories I have to make, which is pockets and stuff on her vest. But that's just too simple and it doesn't matter enough to make it real quick then post screens .
Anyway, hope you like!
kat@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:04 am :
Proportions are generally good, only crit is that her hands look a tad too small? Could do with being may 10-20% larger?
Tron@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:01 am :
I'd say you could probably do a lot less polys on that gun. Look forward to seeing this normal mapped.
Dinky@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 am :
Thanks for comments and critique!
@Kat - Yeah I kinda agree with you on the hands, I'd been thinking about modifying the hands, along with shaping the arms a little bit more before I do more work to the model. Now I think I will modify the hands since now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that area looks a little off.
@Tron - You're probably right in some places, but to be honest it doesn't really matter since it's not going to be included to the final low poly game model. But you should also note that I added a few lines in-case I were to take it into ZBrush with the rest of the model, I wouldn't want certain parts of the gun to get all smoothed and rounded when I divide the entire mesh. But I may not export it to ZBrush with the character, so I could just be wasting poly's like you said.
Last night I did a little bit of the low res mesh but I was a bit too busy and tired tonight to do anything so I'll just save it for tomorrow ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 pm :
dinky, good model so far and cool star wars character you've chosen to work with
I also was thinking her hands looked a little too small, and that a low poly gun could have a lot less polys. other then those I'm wondering if the polys between her crotch and her belt could be smoothed out more, as I think they look too angular at the moment, but maybe its the angle of the screen shot.
last year I started modeling a human male for the first time, and it was a lot harder then I imagined it would to be to get the proportions and edge loops looking right, even with lots of reference images, so I appreciate the work involved involved in modeling a human or non fantasy creature.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:17 am :
@ratty redemption - Yeah, Aurra Sing is one of my favorites . And that's NOT the low poly gun. That gun actually won't be used by the character either, it will just be normal mapped onto a low res version. And the crotch is actually made correctly, because when I divide it into a few million polies in ZBrush (or turn it into Sub-d's) it smooths out properly. If I were to make them straight, then it would just be flat. That area has to look "tucked in", which is what it does right now at the position those edges are.
Anyway, I got a low res completed today, and I put her in-game as a test model. No texture yet but I'll get to that last (after I normal map her). I'll just be texturing the low res, not the high res (though I know Doom 3's Renderbump can transfer textures from high res model to low res).
Here's the screenshot of her in my Doom 3 testing ground map (low res version). It's 2022 triangles, a little high but... Meh.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:57 pm :
Your model high-polycount VS low-polycount zones is a bit strange for me.
look:
In RED zones you put some extra polys to make little details that you will only see to a very close distance (distA), but in the YELLOW zone, you optimized your torso so much that you CAN'T come near to distA and still looking as good as red zones.
Here i think you must remove these extra polys in red zone to add these in the yellow one (to keep a good hips curve).
All these "clothes thickness" polys can be normalmapped without any problem.
That's just some ideas on how i would optimize this model, nothing obligatory of course!
Good luck on your model Dinky.
PS: Isn't "Aurra Sing" the girl character that player control in one of the Jedi Knight extansion?
Rayne@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:42 pm :
those polys are there probably to mantain good looking deformations at animation time.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:43 pm :
dinky, understood and cool
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:00 pm :
@6th Venom - I appreciate you adding your own comments and critique. But I'm aware of everything you just said. As Rayne said, those polies that I added at the knee/ankle/elbows/wrists/shoulders are for animation, and since the torso won't be as extensively animated as the limbs, and even if it is animated it will be subtle and it won't really matter since it's a rather thick part of the model.
If animation points like the elbows/shoulders/ankles/etc. don't get a few more poly's for animation then it will deform VERY unrealistically. But as for the "Jacket" or the "Vest" she's wearing, I am aware that could have been added through normal mapping, but I was afraid that maybe the character silhouette would look strange in-game. Besides, I've tried to normal map similar models in the same way you're talking about, and I got a ridiculously ugly result (or atleast IMO).
And as for Aurra Sing in the Jedi Knight games, I'm not sure. Do you mean Jedi Academy when you say "extansion [expansion?]"?? If you're saying Jedi Academy then no, because I don't EVER remember Aurra Sing in that game. And as far as I've known she's only been in one game, and that's some old N64 game.
And BTW, ratty redemption I'm lovin' your "ratty d3 hell map" wip! Looks great, keep it up.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:41 am :
I used to think modeling terrain was complicated but compared to character modeling, it's relatively straight forward. I also only experimented a little with animating my human model last year, but soon realized I should of built the model from the beginning with edge loops designed for animating, rather then just an acceptable looking static mesh, and as this would of taken more time and effort to fix I put that model on hold, until I had gained more practice with static meshes in blender.
ot: thanks a lot dinky, it's really encouraging to hear some of you guys are still interested in that project of mine, since I haven't worked on it for 3 months, although that was mainly due to moving home and having to use my girlfriends pc until mine was set up, but I'm pretty much back on track again
edit: dinky, would you mind editing the size of your images on this page, as it's forcing some of us to scroll sideways to read all the text. I'm using 1024 width desktop but used to be on 800 which I imagine would require even more side scrolling.
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:59 am :
@Dinky: I think it was the 1st Jedi knight's "expansion" ( ).
And for model itself, i understand that you need extra polies were there are huge deformations, but i'm still sure they are not "optimals", but whatever...
I love the idea to see more women in Doom.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:00 am :
Rezised.
I edited the "Aurra's Head" screenshot, since that was the only one I was having probs with. From now on I'll use ImageShack's thumbnail option. I can't change these to imageshack thumbnails since I don't have their upload page anymore (I should really register there). And I could make thumbnails, but I'm just too lazy. I hope that's good enough for your tiny resolution! I'm always either running 1920x1080, 1280x720 or 1280x1024.
If she was in Jedi Outcast (which is Jedi Knight 2) then I don't remember her, but I was like 12 or something when that game came out (though I did play it a little, I spent much more time on Raven Shield [Rainbow Six]). I'm 17 now (will be 18 later this year) ^_^.
As for my model and the "optimization", if you take a look at the doom guy behind Aurra, he certainly looks a lot higher poly than Aurra, or atleast to me he does. But bah, this model is still around the limit, and compared to the Quake 4 multiplayer Marine, she only has a few more polies than him, and that's probably because she has 5 fingers, not 3 like they do (10 counting the other hand). I HATE the Doom 3 and Quake 4 models, how they don't have individual fingers, it drives me crazy.
BTW, here's the link yet again to her WookiePedia in-case you missed it at the top (or just don't want to scroll back up and find it): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aurra_Sing
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:37 am :
ot: dinky, thanks. this is much easier to read now
imo guys like you and kit89 who is a similar age to you, are very lucky to get into games modding, and or 3d modeling at your age. I've just turned 38 and still have a lot to learn in some of these technical and artistic areas, but when you guys are learning and developing these skills at the rate you are, then by the time your in your mid to late 20's or 30`s you guys should be very skilled and experienced
I now find it difficult to comprehend how limited the computers we had when we were teen agers. one of the first computers I owned, being a 48kb sinclair spectrum, although at the time, home computers with color was ground breaking
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:31 am :
Yeah, young ones in the modding community isn't really TOO common, but it is becoming more common I think. The most important thing, in my opinion, to get younger kids into computer is to get them to play games on PCs rather than Consoles! PC Gaming opens up this whole new world for everyone, because there's not just an online gaming presence that's over a decade old, but there's also of course the amazing modding community. Eventually one thing will lead to another and the kid will soon be installing mods in their games instead of just the vanilla game. Then they'll think that's neat and want to do it themselve's.
But the only reason I got into computers and software like this at all is because of my father. When I was very young he got me into computers. And his first computer, I'm pretty sure was this one right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80. My Father and I are complete opposites though, he's a programmer and I'm an artist. And programming has to be the hardest thing I've ever tried to learn, it was the most difficult thing I had to face during web design was learning Actionscript (Macromedia Flash language). Anything to do with art though and I learn it pretty quick I think.
Oh and the first thing I got into wasn't modding though, it was web design. But I got interested in 3D after that (due to the movies.. I was like 14), THEN I got into modding games. But enough about me, I think PC Gaming is probably one of the best thing any young kid can get into, because it most likely will eventually lead to modding, which will lead to the desire to make mods .
Ok I just realized I sound like Yoda...
Quote:
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 am :
ot: understood and agreed, pc gaming is very important if new people are going to get into the modding scene, that is unless consoles catch up with pc's in the editing software etc.
I've also dabbled a little in coding with the d3 engine, but like you I'm more of an artist so didn't find coding to feel a natural process for me. I also think I'm more at home working with 3d then 2d although I've been working with the latter for decades.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:36 am :
Well I sort-of halfway forgot to make her vest accessories. I didn't really forget.. I kinda just... Skipped it for moment.
Anyway, I did all the front pockets n' stuff, now I just have to do the thing that's on her back, which really isn't all that big of a deal, I won't post it like I am posting these.
All the models are in Sub-D's, which is why they look so smooth ^_^:
Dinky@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:39 am :
I've been working on this character for a little while, and now I'm almost complete with the high res. When I make my models, I first try and make them as low polygon as possible, then send them into ZBrush for detailing. I have not sent this character to ZBrush yet, but I am pretty much done with it in Maya.
But right now, instead of detailing it in ZBrush just yet, I'm making the low poly model for when I put it into Doom 3.
Here she is in polygon form un-smoothed:
Aurra:
Aurra's gun in holster:
Aurra head:
Aurra Sing is a character from Star Wars, she was in the movie (Episode 1) but only a very brief cameo (it lasted like two seconds). But she does have Comic books and I think she's in some novels.
There are a few minor accessories I have to make, which is pockets and stuff on her vest. But that's just too simple and it doesn't matter enough to make it real quick then post screens .
Anyway, hope you like!
kat@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:04 am :
Proportions are generally good, only crit is that her hands look a tad too small? Could do with being may 10-20% larger?
Tron@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:01 am :
I'd say you could probably do a lot less polys on that gun. Look forward to seeing this normal mapped.
Dinky@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 am :
Thanks for comments and critique!
@Kat - Yeah I kinda agree with you on the hands, I'd been thinking about modifying the hands, along with shaping the arms a little bit more before I do more work to the model. Now I think I will modify the hands since now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that area looks a little off.
@Tron - You're probably right in some places, but to be honest it doesn't really matter since it's not going to be included to the final low poly game model. But you should also note that I added a few lines in-case I were to take it into ZBrush with the rest of the model, I wouldn't want certain parts of the gun to get all smoothed and rounded when I divide the entire mesh. But I may not export it to ZBrush with the character, so I could just be wasting poly's like you said.
Last night I did a little bit of the low res mesh but I was a bit too busy and tired tonight to do anything so I'll just save it for tomorrow ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 pm :
dinky, good model so far and cool star wars character you've chosen to work with
I also was thinking her hands looked a little too small, and that a low poly gun could have a lot less polys. other then those I'm wondering if the polys between her crotch and her belt could be smoothed out more, as I think they look too angular at the moment, but maybe its the angle of the screen shot.
last year I started modeling a human male for the first time, and it was a lot harder then I imagined it would to be to get the proportions and edge loops looking right, even with lots of reference images, so I appreciate the work involved involved in modeling a human or non fantasy creature.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:17 am :
@ratty redemption - Yeah, Aurra Sing is one of my favorites . And that's NOT the low poly gun. That gun actually won't be used by the character either, it will just be normal mapped onto a low res version. And the crotch is actually made correctly, because when I divide it into a few million polies in ZBrush (or turn it into Sub-d's) it smooths out properly. If I were to make them straight, then it would just be flat. That area has to look "tucked in", which is what it does right now at the position those edges are.
Anyway, I got a low res completed today, and I put her in-game as a test model. No texture yet but I'll get to that last (after I normal map her). I'll just be texturing the low res, not the high res (though I know Doom 3's Renderbump can transfer textures from high res model to low res).
Here's the screenshot of her in my Doom 3 testing ground map (low res version). It's 2022 triangles, a little high but... Meh.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:57 pm :
Your model high-polycount VS low-polycount zones is a bit strange for me.
look:
In RED zones you put some extra polys to make little details that you will only see to a very close distance (distA), but in the YELLOW zone, you optimized your torso so much that you CAN'T come near to distA and still looking as good as red zones.
Here i think you must remove these extra polys in red zone to add these in the yellow one (to keep a good hips curve).
All these "clothes thickness" polys can be normalmapped without any problem.
That's just some ideas on how i would optimize this model, nothing obligatory of course!
Good luck on your model Dinky.
PS: Isn't "Aurra Sing" the girl character that player control in one of the Jedi Knight extansion?
Rayne@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:42 pm :
those polys are there probably to mantain good looking deformations at animation time.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:43 pm :
dinky, understood and cool
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:00 pm :
@6th Venom - I appreciate you adding your own comments and critique. But I'm aware of everything you just said. As Rayne said, those polies that I added at the knee/ankle/elbows/wrists/shoulders are for animation, and since the torso won't be as extensively animated as the limbs, and even if it is animated it will be subtle and it won't really matter since it's a rather thick part of the model.
If animation points like the elbows/shoulders/ankles/etc. don't get a few more poly's for animation then it will deform VERY unrealistically. But as for the "Jacket" or the "Vest" she's wearing, I am aware that could have been added through normal mapping, but I was afraid that maybe the character silhouette would look strange in-game. Besides, I've tried to normal map similar models in the same way you're talking about, and I got a ridiculously ugly result (or atleast IMO).
And as for Aurra Sing in the Jedi Knight games, I'm not sure. Do you mean Jedi Academy when you say "extansion [expansion?]"?? If you're saying Jedi Academy then no, because I don't EVER remember Aurra Sing in that game. And as far as I've known she's only been in one game, and that's some old N64 game.
And BTW, ratty redemption I'm lovin' your "ratty d3 hell map" wip! Looks great, keep it up.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:41 am :
I used to think modeling terrain was complicated but compared to character modeling, it's relatively straight forward. I also only experimented a little with animating my human model last year, but soon realized I should of built the model from the beginning with edge loops designed for animating, rather then just an acceptable looking static mesh, and as this would of taken more time and effort to fix I put that model on hold, until I had gained more practice with static meshes in blender.
ot: thanks a lot dinky, it's really encouraging to hear some of you guys are still interested in that project of mine, since I haven't worked on it for 3 months, although that was mainly due to moving home and having to use my girlfriends pc until mine was set up, but I'm pretty much back on track again
edit: dinky, would you mind editing the size of your images on this page, as it's forcing some of us to scroll sideways to read all the text. I'm using 1024 width desktop but used to be on 800 which I imagine would require even more side scrolling.
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:59 am :
@Dinky: I think it was the 1st Jedi knight's "expansion" ( ).
And for model itself, i understand that you need extra polies were there are huge deformations, but i'm still sure they are not "optimals", but whatever...
I love the idea to see more women in Doom.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:00 am :
Rezised.
I edited the "Aurra's Head" screenshot, since that was the only one I was having probs with. From now on I'll use ImageShack's thumbnail option. I can't change these to imageshack thumbnails since I don't have their upload page anymore (I should really register there). And I could make thumbnails, but I'm just too lazy. I hope that's good enough for your tiny resolution! I'm always either running 1920x1080, 1280x720 or 1280x1024.
If she was in Jedi Outcast (which is Jedi Knight 2) then I don't remember her, but I was like 12 or something when that game came out (though I did play it a little, I spent much more time on Raven Shield [Rainbow Six]). I'm 17 now (will be 18 later this year) ^_^.
As for my model and the "optimization", if you take a look at the doom guy behind Aurra, he certainly looks a lot higher poly than Aurra, or atleast to me he does. But bah, this model is still around the limit, and compared to the Quake 4 multiplayer Marine, she only has a few more polies than him, and that's probably because she has 5 fingers, not 3 like they do (10 counting the other hand). I HATE the Doom 3 and Quake 4 models, how they don't have individual fingers, it drives me crazy.
BTW, here's the link yet again to her WookiePedia in-case you missed it at the top (or just don't want to scroll back up and find it): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aurra_Sing
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:37 am :
ot: dinky, thanks. this is much easier to read now
imo guys like you and kit89 who is a similar age to you, are very lucky to get into games modding, and or 3d modeling at your age. I've just turned 38 and still have a lot to learn in some of these technical and artistic areas, but when you guys are learning and developing these skills at the rate you are, then by the time your in your mid to late 20's or 30`s you guys should be very skilled and experienced
I now find it difficult to comprehend how limited the computers we had when we were teen agers. one of the first computers I owned, being a 48kb sinclair spectrum, although at the time, home computers with color was ground breaking
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:31 am :
Yeah, young ones in the modding community isn't really TOO common, but it is becoming more common I think. The most important thing, in my opinion, to get younger kids into computer is to get them to play games on PCs rather than Consoles! PC Gaming opens up this whole new world for everyone, because there's not just an online gaming presence that's over a decade old, but there's also of course the amazing modding community. Eventually one thing will lead to another and the kid will soon be installing mods in their games instead of just the vanilla game. Then they'll think that's neat and want to do it themselve's.
But the only reason I got into computers and software like this at all is because of my father. When I was very young he got me into computers. And his first computer, I'm pretty sure was this one right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80. My Father and I are complete opposites though, he's a programmer and I'm an artist. And programming has to be the hardest thing I've ever tried to learn, it was the most difficult thing I had to face during web design was learning Actionscript (Macromedia Flash language). Anything to do with art though and I learn it pretty quick I think.
Oh and the first thing I got into wasn't modding though, it was web design. But I got interested in 3D after that (due to the movies.. I was like 14), THEN I got into modding games. But enough about me, I think PC Gaming is probably one of the best thing any young kid can get into, because it most likely will eventually lead to modding, which will lead to the desire to make mods .
Ok I just realized I sound like Yoda...
Quote:
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 am :
ot: understood and agreed, pc gaming is very important if new people are going to get into the modding scene, that is unless consoles catch up with pc's in the editing software etc.
I've also dabbled a little in coding with the d3 engine, but like you I'm more of an artist so didn't find coding to feel a natural process for me. I also think I'm more at home working with 3d then 2d although I've been working with the latter for decades.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:36 am :
Well I sort-of halfway forgot to make her vest accessories. I didn't really forget.. I kinda just... Skipped it for moment.
Anyway, I did all the front pockets n' stuff, now I just have to do the thing that's on her back, which really isn't all that big of a deal, I won't post it like I am posting these.
All the models are in Sub-D's, which is why they look so smooth ^_^:
Fo
Dinky@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:39 am :
I've been working on this character for a little while, and now I'm almost complete with the high res. When I make my models, I first try and make them as low polygon as possible, then send them into ZBrush for detailing. I have not sent this character to ZBrush yet, but I am pretty much done with it in Maya.
But right now, instead of detailing it in ZBrush just yet, I'm making the low poly model for when I put it into Doom 3.
Here she is in polygon form un-smoothed:
Aurra:
Aurra's gun in holster:
Aurra head:
Aurra Sing is a character from Star Wars, she was in the movie (Episode 1) but only a very brief cameo (it lasted like two seconds). But she does have Comic books and I think she's in some novels.
There are a few minor accessories I have to make, which is pockets and stuff on her vest. But that's just too simple and it doesn't matter enough to make it real quick then post screens .
Anyway, hope you like!
kat@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:04 am :
Proportions are generally good, only crit is that her hands look a tad too small? Could do with being may 10-20% larger?
Tron@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:01 am :
I'd say you could probably do a lot less polys on that gun. Look forward to seeing this normal mapped.
Dinky@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 am :
Thanks for comments and critique!
@Kat - Yeah I kinda agree with you on the hands, I'd been thinking about modifying the hands, along with shaping the arms a little bit more before I do more work to the model. Now I think I will modify the hands since now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that area looks a little off.
@Tron - You're probably right in some places, but to be honest it doesn't really matter since it's not going to be included to the final low poly game model. But you should also note that I added a few lines in-case I were to take it into ZBrush with the rest of the model, I wouldn't want certain parts of the gun to get all smoothed and rounded when I divide the entire mesh. But I may not export it to ZBrush with the character, so I could just be wasting poly's like you said.
Last night I did a little bit of the low res mesh but I was a bit too busy and tired tonight to do anything so I'll just save it for tomorrow ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 pm :
dinky, good model so far and cool star wars character you've chosen to work with
I also was thinking her hands looked a little too small, and that a low poly gun could have a lot less polys. other then those I'm wondering if the polys between her crotch and her belt could be smoothed out more, as I think they look too angular at the moment, but maybe its the angle of the screen shot.
last year I started modeling a human male for the first time, and it was a lot harder then I imagined it would to be to get the proportions and edge loops looking right, even with lots of reference images, so I appreciate the work involved involved in modeling a human or non fantasy creature.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:17 am :
@ratty redemption - Yeah, Aurra Sing is one of my favorites . And that's NOT the low poly gun. That gun actually won't be used by the character either, it will just be normal mapped onto a low res version. And the crotch is actually made correctly, because when I divide it into a few million polies in ZBrush (or turn it into Sub-d's) it smooths out properly. If I were to make them straight, then it would just be flat. That area has to look "tucked in", which is what it does right now at the position those edges are.
Anyway, I got a low res completed today, and I put her in-game as a test model. No texture yet but I'll get to that last (after I normal map her). I'll just be texturing the low res, not the high res (though I know Doom 3's Renderbump can transfer textures from high res model to low res).
Here's the screenshot of her in my Doom 3 testing ground map (low res version). It's 2022 triangles, a little high but... Meh.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:57 pm :
Your model high-polycount VS low-polycount zones is a bit strange for me.
look:
In RED zones you put some extra polys to make little details that you will only see to a very close distance (distA), but in the YELLOW zone, you optimized your torso so much that you CAN'T come near to distA and still looking as good as red zones.
Here i think you must remove these extra polys in red zone to add these in the yellow one (to keep a good hips curve).
All these "clothes thickness" polys can be normalmapped without any problem.
That's just some ideas on how i would optimize this model, nothing obligatory of course!
Good luck on your model Dinky.
PS: Isn't "Aurra Sing" the girl character that player control in one of the Jedi Knight extansion?
Rayne@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:42 pm :
those polys are there probably to mantain good looking deformations at animation time.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:43 pm :
dinky, understood and cool
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:00 pm :
@6th Venom - I appreciate you adding your own comments and critique. But I'm aware of everything you just said. As Rayne said, those polies that I added at the knee/ankle/elbows/wrists/shoulders are for animation, and since the torso won't be as extensively animated as the limbs, and even if it is animated it will be subtle and it won't really matter since it's a rather thick part of the model.
If animation points like the elbows/shoulders/ankles/etc. don't get a few more poly's for animation then it will deform VERY unrealistically. But as for the "Jacket" or the "Vest" she's wearing, I am aware that could have been added through normal mapping, but I was afraid that maybe the character silhouette would look strange in-game. Besides, I've tried to normal map similar models in the same way you're talking about, and I got a ridiculously ugly result (or atleast IMO).
And as for Aurra Sing in the Jedi Knight games, I'm not sure. Do you mean Jedi Academy when you say "extansion [expansion?]"?? If you're saying Jedi Academy then no, because I don't EVER remember Aurra Sing in that game. And as far as I've known she's only been in one game, and that's some old N64 game.
And BTW, ratty redemption I'm lovin' your "ratty d3 hell map" wip! Looks great, keep it up.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:41 am :
I used to think modeling terrain was complicated but compared to character modeling, it's relatively straight forward. I also only experimented a little with animating my human model last year, but soon realized I should of built the model from the beginning with edge loops designed for animating, rather then just an acceptable looking static mesh, and as this would of taken more time and effort to fix I put that model on hold, until I had gained more practice with static meshes in blender.
ot: thanks a lot dinky, it's really encouraging to hear some of you guys are still interested in that project of mine, since I haven't worked on it for 3 months, although that was mainly due to moving home and having to use my girlfriends pc until mine was set up, but I'm pretty much back on track again
edit: dinky, would you mind editing the size of your images on this page, as it's forcing some of us to scroll sideways to read all the text. I'm using 1024 width desktop but used to be on 800 which I imagine would require even more side scrolling.
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:59 am :
@Dinky: I think it was the 1st Jedi knight's "expansion" ( ).
And for model itself, i understand that you need extra polies were there are huge deformations, but i'm still sure they are not "optimals", but whatever...
I love the idea to see more women in Doom.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:00 am :
Rezised.
I edited the "Aurra's Head" screenshot, since that was the only one I was having probs with. From now on I'll use ImageShack's thumbnail option. I can't change these to imageshack thumbnails since I don't have their upload page anymore (I should really register there). And I could make thumbnails, but I'm just too lazy. I hope that's good enough for your tiny resolution! I'm always either running 1920x1080, 1280x720 or 1280x1024.
If she was in Jedi Outcast (which is Jedi Knight 2) then I don't remember her, but I was like 12 or something when that game came out (though I did play it a little, I spent much more time on Raven Shield [Rainbow Six]). I'm 17 now (will be 18 later this year) ^_^.
As for my model and the "optimization", if you take a look at the doom guy behind Aurra, he certainly looks a lot higher poly than Aurra, or atleast to me he does. But bah, this model is still around the limit, and compared to the Quake 4 multiplayer Marine, she only has a few more polies than him, and that's probably because she has 5 fingers, not 3 like they do (10 counting the other hand). I HATE the Doom 3 and Quake 4 models, how they don't have individual fingers, it drives me crazy.
BTW, here's the link yet again to her WookiePedia in-case you missed it at the top (or just don't want to scroll back up and find it): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aurra_Sing
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:37 am :
ot: dinky, thanks. this is much easier to read now
imo guys like you and kit89 who is a similar age to you, are very lucky to get into games modding, and or 3d modeling at your age. I've just turned 38 and still have a lot to learn in some of these technical and artistic areas, but when you guys are learning and developing these skills at the rate you are, then by the time your in your mid to late 20's or 30`s you guys should be very skilled and experienced
I now find it difficult to comprehend how limited the computers we had when we were teen agers. one of the first computers I owned, being a 48kb sinclair spectrum, although at the time, home computers with color was ground breaking
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:31 am :
Yeah, young ones in the modding community isn't really TOO common, but it is becoming more common I think. The most important thing, in my opinion, to get younger kids into computer is to get them to play games on PCs rather than Consoles! PC Gaming opens up this whole new world for everyone, because there's not just an online gaming presence that's over a decade old, but there's also of course the amazing modding community. Eventually one thing will lead to another and the kid will soon be installing mods in their games instead of just the vanilla game. Then they'll think that's neat and want to do it themselve's.
But the only reason I got into computers and software like this at all is because of my father. When I was very young he got me into computers. And his first computer, I'm pretty sure was this one right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80. My Father and I are complete opposites though, he's a programmer and I'm an artist. And programming has to be the hardest thing I've ever tried to learn, it was the most difficult thing I had to face during web design was learning Actionscript (Macromedia Flash language). Anything to do with art though and I learn it pretty quick I think.
Oh and the first thing I got into wasn't modding though, it was web design. But I got interested in 3D after that (due to the movies.. I was like 14), THEN I got into modding games. But enough about me, I think PC Gaming is probably one of the best thing any young kid can get into, because it most likely will eventually lead to modding, which will lead to the desire to make mods .
Ok I just realized I sound like Yoda...
Quote:
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 am :
ot: understood and agreed, pc gaming is very important if new people are going to get into the modding scene, that is unless consoles catch up with pc's in the editing software etc.
I've also dabbled a little in coding with the d3 engine, but like you I'm more of an artist so didn't find coding to feel a natural process for me. I also think I'm more at home working with 3d then 2d although I've been working with the latter for decades.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:36 am :
Well I sort-of halfway forgot to make her vest accessories. I didn't really forget.. I kinda just... Skipped it for moment.
Anyway, I did all the front pockets n' stuff, now I just have to do the thing that's on her back, which really isn't all that big of a deal, I won't post it like I am posting these.
All the models are in Sub-D's, which is why they look so smooth ^_^:
Dinky@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:39 am :
I've been working on this character for a little while, and now I'm almost complete with the high res. When I make my models, I first try and make them as low polygon as possible, then send them into ZBrush for detailing. I have not sent this character to ZBrush yet, but I am pretty much done with it in Maya.
But right now, instead of detailing it in ZBrush just yet, I'm making the low poly model for when I put it into Doom 3.
Here she is in polygon form un-smoothed:
Aurra:
Aurra's gun in holster:
Aurra head:
Aurra Sing is a character from Star Wars, she was in the movie (Episode 1) but only a very brief cameo (it lasted like two seconds). But she does have Comic books and I think she's in some novels.
There are a few minor accessories I have to make, which is pockets and stuff on her vest. But that's just too simple and it doesn't matter enough to make it real quick then post screens .
Anyway, hope you like!
kat@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:04 am :
Proportions are generally good, only crit is that her hands look a tad too small? Could do with being may 10-20% larger?
Tron@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:01 am :
I'd say you could probably do a lot less polys on that gun. Look forward to seeing this normal mapped.
Dinky@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 am :
Thanks for comments and critique!
@Kat - Yeah I kinda agree with you on the hands, I'd been thinking about modifying the hands, along with shaping the arms a little bit more before I do more work to the model. Now I think I will modify the hands since now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that area looks a little off.
@Tron - You're probably right in some places, but to be honest it doesn't really matter since it's not going to be included to the final low poly game model. But you should also note that I added a few lines in-case I were to take it into ZBrush with the rest of the model, I wouldn't want certain parts of the gun to get all smoothed and rounded when I divide the entire mesh. But I may not export it to ZBrush with the character, so I could just be wasting poly's like you said.
Last night I did a little bit of the low res mesh but I was a bit too busy and tired tonight to do anything so I'll just save it for tomorrow ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 pm :
dinky, good model so far and cool star wars character you've chosen to work with
I also was thinking her hands looked a little too small, and that a low poly gun could have a lot less polys. other then those I'm wondering if the polys between her crotch and her belt could be smoothed out more, as I think they look too angular at the moment, but maybe its the angle of the screen shot.
last year I started modeling a human male for the first time, and it was a lot harder then I imagined it would to be to get the proportions and edge loops looking right, even with lots of reference images, so I appreciate the work involved involved in modeling a human or non fantasy creature.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:17 am :
@ratty redemption - Yeah, Aurra Sing is one of my favorites . And that's NOT the low poly gun. That gun actually won't be used by the character either, it will just be normal mapped onto a low res version. And the crotch is actually made correctly, because when I divide it into a few million polies in ZBrush (or turn it into Sub-d's) it smooths out properly. If I were to make them straight, then it would just be flat. That area has to look "tucked in", which is what it does right now at the position those edges are.
Anyway, I got a low res completed today, and I put her in-game as a test model. No texture yet but I'll get to that last (after I normal map her). I'll just be texturing the low res, not the high res (though I know Doom 3's Renderbump can transfer textures from high res model to low res).
Here's the screenshot of her in my Doom 3 testing ground map (low res version). It's 2022 triangles, a little high but... Meh.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:57 pm :
Your model high-polycount VS low-polycount zones is a bit strange for me.
look:
In RED zones you put some extra polys to make little details that you will only see to a very close distance (distA), but in the YELLOW zone, you optimized your torso so much that you CAN'T come near to distA and still looking as good as red zones.
Here i think you must remove these extra polys in red zone to add these in the yellow one (to keep a good hips curve).
All these "clothes thickness" polys can be normalmapped without any problem.
That's just some ideas on how i would optimize this model, nothing obligatory of course!
Good luck on your model Dinky.
PS: Isn't "Aurra Sing" the girl character that player control in one of the Jedi Knight extansion?
Rayne@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:42 pm :
those polys are there probably to mantain good looking deformations at animation time.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:43 pm :
dinky, understood and cool
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:00 pm :
@6th Venom - I appreciate you adding your own comments and critique. But I'm aware of everything you just said. As Rayne said, those polies that I added at the knee/ankle/elbows/wrists/shoulders are for animation, and since the torso won't be as extensively animated as the limbs, and even if it is animated it will be subtle and it won't really matter since it's a rather thick part of the model.
If animation points like the elbows/shoulders/ankles/etc. don't get a few more poly's for animation then it will deform VERY unrealistically. But as for the "Jacket" or the "Vest" she's wearing, I am aware that could have been added through normal mapping, but I was afraid that maybe the character silhouette would look strange in-game. Besides, I've tried to normal map similar models in the same way you're talking about, and I got a ridiculously ugly result (or atleast IMO).
And as for Aurra Sing in the Jedi Knight games, I'm not sure. Do you mean Jedi Academy when you say "extansion [expansion?]"?? If you're saying Jedi Academy then no, because I don't EVER remember Aurra Sing in that game. And as far as I've known she's only been in one game, and that's some old N64 game.
And BTW, ratty redemption I'm lovin' your "ratty d3 hell map" wip! Looks great, keep it up.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:41 am :
I used to think modeling terrain was complicated but compared to character modeling, it's relatively straight forward. I also only experimented a little with animating my human model last year, but soon realized I should of built the model from the beginning with edge loops designed for animating, rather then just an acceptable looking static mesh, and as this would of taken more time and effort to fix I put that model on hold, until I had gained more practice with static meshes in blender.
ot: thanks a lot dinky, it's really encouraging to hear some of you guys are still interested in that project of mine, since I haven't worked on it for 3 months, although that was mainly due to moving home and having to use my girlfriends pc until mine was set up, but I'm pretty much back on track again
edit: dinky, would you mind editing the size of your images on this page, as it's forcing some of us to scroll sideways to read all the text. I'm using 1024 width desktop but used to be on 800 which I imagine would require even more side scrolling.
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:59 am :
@Dinky: I think it was the 1st Jedi knight's "expansion" ( ).
And for model itself, i understand that you need extra polies were there are huge deformations, but i'm still sure they are not "optimals", but whatever...
I love the idea to see more women in Doom.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:00 am :
Rezised.
I edited the "Aurra's Head" screenshot, since that was the only one I was having probs with. From now on I'll use ImageShack's thumbnail option. I can't change these to imageshack thumbnails since I don't have their upload page anymore (I should really register there). And I could make thumbnails, but I'm just too lazy. I hope that's good enough for your tiny resolution! I'm always either running 1920x1080, 1280x720 or 1280x1024.
If she was in Jedi Outcast (which is Jedi Knight 2) then I don't remember her, but I was like 12 or something when that game came out (though I did play it a little, I spent much more time on Raven Shield [Rainbow Six]). I'm 17 now (will be 18 later this year) ^_^.
As for my model and the "optimization", if you take a look at the doom guy behind Aurra, he certainly looks a lot higher poly than Aurra, or atleast to me he does. But bah, this model is still around the limit, and compared to the Quake 4 multiplayer Marine, she only has a few more polies than him, and that's probably because she has 5 fingers, not 3 like they do (10 counting the other hand). I HATE the Doom 3 and Quake 4 models, how they don't have individual fingers, it drives me crazy.
BTW, here's the link yet again to her WookiePedia in-case you missed it at the top (or just don't want to scroll back up and find it): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aurra_Sing
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:37 am :
ot: dinky, thanks. this is much easier to read now
imo guys like you and kit89 who is a similar age to you, are very lucky to get into games modding, and or 3d modeling at your age. I've just turned 38 and still have a lot to learn in some of these technical and artistic areas, but when you guys are learning and developing these skills at the rate you are, then by the time your in your mid to late 20's or 30`s you guys should be very skilled and experienced
I now find it difficult to comprehend how limited the computers we had when we were teen agers. one of the first computers I owned, being a 48kb sinclair spectrum, although at the time, home computers with color was ground breaking
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:31 am :
Yeah, young ones in the modding community isn't really TOO common, but it is becoming more common I think. The most important thing, in my opinion, to get younger kids into computer is to get them to play games on PCs rather than Consoles! PC Gaming opens up this whole new world for everyone, because there's not just an online gaming presence that's over a decade old, but there's also of course the amazing modding community. Eventually one thing will lead to another and the kid will soon be installing mods in their games instead of just the vanilla game. Then they'll think that's neat and want to do it themselve's.
But the only reason I got into computers and software like this at all is because of my father. When I was very young he got me into computers. And his first computer, I'm pretty sure was this one right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80. My Father and I are complete opposites though, he's a programmer and I'm an artist. And programming has to be the hardest thing I've ever tried to learn, it was the most difficult thing I had to face during web design was learning Actionscript (Macromedia Flash language). Anything to do with art though and I learn it pretty quick I think.
Oh and the first thing I got into wasn't modding though, it was web design. But I got interested in 3D after that (due to the movies.. I was like 14), THEN I got into modding games. But enough about me, I think PC Gaming is probably one of the best thing any young kid can get into, because it most likely will eventually lead to modding, which will lead to the desire to make mods .
Ok I just realized I sound like Yoda...
Quote:
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 am :
ot: understood and agreed, pc gaming is very important if new people are going to get into the modding scene, that is unless consoles catch up with pc's in the editing software etc.
I've also dabbled a little in coding with the d3 engine, but like you I'm more of an artist so didn't find coding to feel a natural process for me. I also think I'm more at home working with 3d then 2d although I've been working with the latter for decades.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:36 am :
Well I sort-of halfway forgot to make her vest accessories. I didn't really forget.. I kinda just... Skipped it for moment.
Anyway, I did all the front pockets n' stuff, now I just have to do the thing that's on her back, which really isn't all that big of a deal, I won't post it like I am posting these.
All the models are in Sub-D's, which is why they look so smooth ^_^:
Dinky@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:39 am :
I've been working on this character for a little while, and now I'm almost complete with the high res. When I make my models, I first try and make them as low polygon as possible, then send them into ZBrush for detailing. I have not sent this character to ZBrush yet, but I am pretty much done with it in Maya.
But right now, instead of detailing it in ZBrush just yet, I'm making the low poly model for when I put it into Doom 3.
Here she is in polygon form un-smoothed:
Aurra:
Aurra's gun in holster:
Aurra head:
Aurra Sing is a character from Star Wars, she was in the movie (Episode 1) but only a very brief cameo (it lasted like two seconds). But she does have Comic books and I think she's in some novels.
There are a few minor accessories I have to make, which is pockets and stuff on her vest. But that's just too simple and it doesn't matter enough to make it real quick then post screens .
Anyway, hope you like!
kat@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:04 am :
Proportions are generally good, only crit is that her hands look a tad too small? Could do with being may 10-20% larger?
Tron@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:01 am :
I'd say you could probably do a lot less polys on that gun. Look forward to seeing this normal mapped.
Dinky@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 am :
Thanks for comments and critique!
@Kat - Yeah I kinda agree with you on the hands, I'd been thinking about modifying the hands, along with shaping the arms a little bit more before I do more work to the model. Now I think I will modify the hands since now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that area looks a little off.
@Tron - You're probably right in some places, but to be honest it doesn't really matter since it's not going to be included to the final low poly game model. But you should also note that I added a few lines in-case I were to take it into ZBrush with the rest of the model, I wouldn't want certain parts of the gun to get all smoothed and rounded when I divide the entire mesh. But I may not export it to ZBrush with the character, so I could just be wasting poly's like you said.
Last night I did a little bit of the low res mesh but I was a bit too busy and tired tonight to do anything so I'll just save it for tomorrow ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 pm :
dinky, good model so far and cool star wars character you've chosen to work with
I also was thinking her hands looked a little too small, and that a low poly gun could have a lot less polys. other then those I'm wondering if the polys between her crotch and her belt could be smoothed out more, as I think they look too angular at the moment, but maybe its the angle of the screen shot.
last year I started modeling a human male for the first time, and it was a lot harder then I imagined it would to be to get the proportions and edge loops looking right, even with lots of reference images, so I appreciate the work involved involved in modeling a human or non fantasy creature.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:17 am :
@ratty redemption - Yeah, Aurra Sing is one of my favorites . And that's NOT the low poly gun. That gun actually won't be used by the character either, it will just be normal mapped onto a low res version. And the crotch is actually made correctly, because when I divide it into a few million polies in ZBrush (or turn it into Sub-d's) it smooths out properly. If I were to make them straight, then it would just be flat. That area has to look "tucked in", which is what it does right now at the position those edges are.
Anyway, I got a low res completed today, and I put her in-game as a test model. No texture yet but I'll get to that last (after I normal map her). I'll just be texturing the low res, not the high res (though I know Doom 3's Renderbump can transfer textures from high res model to low res).
Here's the screenshot of her in my Doom 3 testing ground map (low res version). It's 2022 triangles, a little high but... Meh.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:57 pm :
Your model high-polycount VS low-polycount zones is a bit strange for me.
look:
In RED zones you put some extra polys to make little details that you will only see to a very close distance (distA), but in the YELLOW zone, you optimized your torso so much that you CAN'T come near to distA and still looking as good as red zones.
Here i think you must remove these extra polys in red zone to add these in the yellow one (to keep a good hips curve).
All these "clothes thickness" polys can be normalmapped without any problem.
That's just some ideas on how i would optimize this model, nothing obligatory of course!
Good luck on your model Dinky.
PS: Isn't "Aurra Sing" the girl character that player control in one of the Jedi Knight extansion?
Rayne@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:42 pm :
those polys are there probably to mantain good looking deformations at animation time.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:43 pm :
dinky, understood and cool
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:00 pm :
@6th Venom - I appreciate you adding your own comments and critique. But I'm aware of everything you just said. As Rayne said, those polies that I added at the knee/ankle/elbows/wrists/shoulders are for animation, and since the torso won't be as extensively animated as the limbs, and even if it is animated it will be subtle and it won't really matter since it's a rather thick part of the model.
If animation points like the elbows/shoulders/ankles/etc. don't get a few more poly's for animation then it will deform VERY unrealistically. But as for the "Jacket" or the "Vest" she's wearing, I am aware that could have been added through normal mapping, but I was afraid that maybe the character silhouette would look strange in-game. Besides, I've tried to normal map similar models in the same way you're talking about, and I got a ridiculously ugly result (or atleast IMO).
And as for Aurra Sing in the Jedi Knight games, I'm not sure. Do you mean Jedi Academy when you say "extansion [expansion?]"?? If you're saying Jedi Academy then no, because I don't EVER remember Aurra Sing in that game. And as far as I've known she's only been in one game, and that's some old N64 game.
And BTW, ratty redemption I'm lovin' your "ratty d3 hell map" wip! Looks great, keep it up.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:41 am :
I used to think modeling terrain was complicated but compared to character modeling, it's relatively straight forward. I also only experimented a little with animating my human model last year, but soon realized I should of built the model from the beginning with edge loops designed for animating, rather then just an acceptable looking static mesh, and as this would of taken more time and effort to fix I put that model on hold, until I had gained more practice with static meshes in blender.
ot: thanks a lot dinky, it's really encouraging to hear some of you guys are still interested in that project of mine, since I haven't worked on it for 3 months, although that was mainly due to moving home and having to use my girlfriends pc until mine was set up, but I'm pretty much back on track again
edit: dinky, would you mind editing the size of your images on this page, as it's forcing some of us to scroll sideways to read all the text. I'm using 1024 width desktop but used to be on 800 which I imagine would require even more side scrolling.
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:59 am :
@Dinky: I think it was the 1st Jedi knight's "expansion" ( ).
And for model itself, i understand that you need extra polies were there are huge deformations, but i'm still sure they are not "optimals", but whatever...
I love the idea to see more women in Doom.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:00 am :
Rezised.
I edited the "Aurra's Head" screenshot, since that was the only one I was having probs with. From now on I'll use ImageShack's thumbnail option. I can't change these to imageshack thumbnails since I don't have their upload page anymore (I should really register there). And I could make thumbnails, but I'm just too lazy. I hope that's good enough for your tiny resolution! I'm always either running 1920x1080, 1280x720 or 1280x1024.
If she was in Jedi Outcast (which is Jedi Knight 2) then I don't remember her, but I was like 12 or something when that game came out (though I did play it a little, I spent much more time on Raven Shield [Rainbow Six]). I'm 17 now (will be 18 later this year) ^_^.
As for my model and the "optimization", if you take a look at the doom guy behind Aurra, he certainly looks a lot higher poly than Aurra, or atleast to me he does. But bah, this model is still around the limit, and compared to the Quake 4 multiplayer Marine, she only has a few more polies than him, and that's probably because she has 5 fingers, not 3 like they do (10 counting the other hand). I HATE the Doom 3 and Quake 4 models, how they don't have individual fingers, it drives me crazy.
BTW, here's the link yet again to her WookiePedia in-case you missed it at the top (or just don't want to scroll back up and find it): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aurra_Sing
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:37 am :
ot: dinky, thanks. this is much easier to read now
imo guys like you and kit89 who is a similar age to you, are very lucky to get into games modding, and or 3d modeling at your age. I've just turned 38 and still have a lot to learn in some of these technical and artistic areas, but when you guys are learning and developing these skills at the rate you are, then by the time your in your mid to late 20's or 30`s you guys should be very skilled and experienced
I now find it difficult to comprehend how limited the computers we had when we were teen agers. one of the first computers I owned, being a 48kb sinclair spectrum, although at the time, home computers with color was ground breaking
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:31 am :
Yeah, young ones in the modding community isn't really TOO common, but it is becoming more common I think. The most important thing, in my opinion, to get younger kids into computer is to get them to play games on PCs rather than Consoles! PC Gaming opens up this whole new world for everyone, because there's not just an online gaming presence that's over a decade old, but there's also of course the amazing modding community. Eventually one thing will lead to another and the kid will soon be installing mods in their games instead of just the vanilla game. Then they'll think that's neat and want to do it themselve's.
But the only reason I got into computers and software like this at all is because of my father. When I was very young he got me into computers. And his first computer, I'm pretty sure was this one right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80. My Father and I are complete opposites though, he's a programmer and I'm an artist. And programming has to be the hardest thing I've ever tried to learn, it was the most difficult thing I had to face during web design was learning Actionscript (Macromedia Flash language). Anything to do with art though and I learn it pretty quick I think.
Oh and the first thing I got into wasn't modding though, it was web design. But I got interested in 3D after that (due to the movies.. I was like 14), THEN I got into modding games. But enough about me, I think PC Gaming is probably one of the best thing any young kid can get into, because it most likely will eventually lead to modding, which will lead to the desire to make mods .
Ok I just realized I sound like Yoda...
Quote:
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 am :
ot: understood and agreed, pc gaming is very important if new people are going to get into the modding scene, that is unless consoles catch up with pc's in the editing software etc.
I've also dabbled a little in coding with the d3 engine, but like you I'm more of an artist so didn't find coding to feel a natural process for me. I also think I'm more at home working with 3d then 2d although I've been working with the latter for decades.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:36 am :
Well I sort-of halfway forgot to make her vest accessories. I didn't really forget.. I kinda just... Skipped it for moment.
Anyway, I did all the front pockets n' stuff, now I just have to do the thing that's on her back, which really isn't all that big of a deal, I won't post it like I am posting these.
All the models are in Sub-D's, which is why they look so smooth ^_^:
Dinky@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:39 am :
I've been working on this character for a little while, and now I'm almost complete with the high res. When I make my models, I first try and make them as low polygon as possible, then send them into ZBrush for detailing. I have not sent this character to ZBrush yet, but I am pretty much done with it in Maya.
But right now, instead of detailing it in ZBrush just yet, I'm making the low poly model for when I put it into Doom 3.
Here she is in polygon form un-smoothed:
Aurra:
Aurra's gun in holster:
Aurra head:
Aurra Sing is a character from Star Wars, she was in the movie (Episode 1) but only a very brief cameo (it lasted like two seconds). But she does have Comic books and I think she's in some novels.
There are a few minor accessories I have to make, which is pockets and stuff on her vest. But that's just too simple and it doesn't matter enough to make it real quick then post screens .
Anyway, hope you like!
kat@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:04 am :
Proportions are generally good, only crit is that her hands look a tad too small? Could do with being may 10-20% larger?
Tron@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:01 am :
I'd say you could probably do a lot less polys on that gun. Look forward to seeing this normal mapped.
Dinky@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 am :
Thanks for comments and critique!
@Kat - Yeah I kinda agree with you on the hands, I'd been thinking about modifying the hands, along with shaping the arms a little bit more before I do more work to the model. Now I think I will modify the hands since now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that area looks a little off.
@Tron - You're probably right in some places, but to be honest it doesn't really matter since it's not going to be included to the final low poly game model. But you should also note that I added a few lines in-case I were to take it into ZBrush with the rest of the model, I wouldn't want certain parts of the gun to get all smoothed and rounded when I divide the entire mesh. But I may not export it to ZBrush with the character, so I could just be wasting poly's like you said.
Last night I did a little bit of the low res mesh but I was a bit too busy and tired tonight to do anything so I'll just save it for tomorrow ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 pm :
dinky, good model so far and cool star wars character you've chosen to work with
I also was thinking her hands looked a little too small, and that a low poly gun could have a lot less polys. other then those I'm wondering if the polys between her crotch and her belt could be smoothed out more, as I think they look too angular at the moment, but maybe its the angle of the screen shot.
last year I started modeling a human male for the first time, and it was a lot harder then I imagined it would to be to get the proportions and edge loops looking right, even with lots of reference images, so I appreciate the work involved involved in modeling a human or non fantasy creature.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:17 am :
@ratty redemption - Yeah, Aurra Sing is one of my favorites . And that's NOT the low poly gun. That gun actually won't be used by the character either, it will just be normal mapped onto a low res version. And the crotch is actually made correctly, because when I divide it into a few million polies in ZBrush (or turn it into Sub-d's) it smooths out properly. If I were to make them straight, then it would just be flat. That area has to look "tucked in", which is what it does right now at the position those edges are.
Anyway, I got a low res completed today, and I put her in-game as a test model. No texture yet but I'll get to that last (after I normal map her). I'll just be texturing the low res, not the high res (though I know Doom 3's Renderbump can transfer textures from high res model to low res).
Here's the screenshot of her in my Doom 3 testing ground map (low res version). It's 2022 triangles, a little high but... Meh.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:57 pm :
Your model high-polycount VS low-polycount zones is a bit strange for me.
look:
In RED zones you put some extra polys to make little details that you will only see to a very close distance (distA), but in the YELLOW zone, you optimized your torso so much that you CAN'T come near to distA and still looking as good as red zones.
Here i think you must remove these extra polys in red zone to add these in the yellow one (to keep a good hips curve).
All these "clothes thickness" polys can be normalmapped without any problem.
That's just some ideas on how i would optimize this model, nothing obligatory of course!
Good luck on your model Dinky.
PS: Isn't "Aurra Sing" the girl character that player control in one of the Jedi Knight extansion?
Rayne@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:42 pm :
those polys are there probably to mantain good looking deformations at animation time.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:43 pm :
dinky, understood and cool
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:00 pm :
@6th Venom - I appreciate you adding your own comments and critique. But I'm aware of everything you just said. As Rayne said, those polies that I added at the knee/ankle/elbows/wrists/shoulders are for animation, and since the torso won't be as extensively animated as the limbs, and even if it is animated it will be subtle and it won't really matter since it's a rather thick part of the model.
If animation points like the elbows/shoulders/ankles/etc. don't get a few more poly's for animation then it will deform VERY unrealistically. But as for the "Jacket" or the "Vest" she's wearing, I am aware that could have been added through normal mapping, but I was afraid that maybe the character silhouette would look strange in-game. Besides, I've tried to normal map similar models in the same way you're talking about, and I got a ridiculously ugly result (or atleast IMO).
And as for Aurra Sing in the Jedi Knight games, I'm not sure. Do you mean Jedi Academy when you say "extansion [expansion?]"?? If you're saying Jedi Academy then no, because I don't EVER remember Aurra Sing in that game. And as far as I've known she's only been in one game, and that's some old N64 game.
And BTW, ratty redemption I'm lovin' your "ratty d3 hell map" wip! Looks great, keep it up.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:41 am :
I used to think modeling terrain was complicated but compared to character modeling, it's relatively straight forward. I also only experimented a little with animating my human model last year, but soon realized I should of built the model from the beginning with edge loops designed for animating, rather then just an acceptable looking static mesh, and as this would of taken more time and effort to fix I put that model on hold, until I had gained more practice with static meshes in blender.
ot: thanks a lot dinky, it's really encouraging to hear some of you guys are still interested in that project of mine, since I haven't worked on it for 3 months, although that was mainly due to moving home and having to use my girlfriends pc until mine was set up, but I'm pretty much back on track again
edit: dinky, would you mind editing the size of your images on this page, as it's forcing some of us to scroll sideways to read all the text. I'm using 1024 width desktop but used to be on 800 which I imagine would require even more side scrolling.
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:59 am :
@Dinky: I think it was the 1st Jedi knight's "expansion" ( ).
And for model itself, i understand that you need extra polies were there are huge deformations, but i'm still sure they are not "optimals", but whatever...
I love the idea to see more women in Doom.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:00 am :
Rezised.
I edited the "Aurra's Head" screenshot, since that was the only one I was having probs with. From now on I'll use ImageShack's thumbnail option. I can't change these to imageshack thumbnails since I don't have their upload page anymore (I should really register there). And I could make thumbnails, but I'm just too lazy. I hope that's good enough for your tiny resolution! I'm always either running 1920x1080, 1280x720 or 1280x1024.
If she was in Jedi Outcast (which is Jedi Knight 2) then I don't remember her, but I was like 12 or something when that game came out (though I did play it a little, I spent much more time on Raven Shield [Rainbow Six]). I'm 17 now (will be 18 later this year) ^_^.
As for my model and the "optimization", if you take a look at the doom guy behind Aurra, he certainly looks a lot higher poly than Aurra, or atleast to me he does. But bah, this model is still around the limit, and compared to the Quake 4 multiplayer Marine, she only has a few more polies than him, and that's probably because she has 5 fingers, not 3 like they do (10 counting the other hand). I HATE the Doom 3 and Quake 4 models, how they don't have individual fingers, it drives me crazy.
BTW, here's the link yet again to her WookiePedia in-case you missed it at the top (or just don't want to scroll back up and find it): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aurra_Sing
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:37 am :
ot: dinky, thanks. this is much easier to read now
imo guys like you and kit89 who is a similar age to you, are very lucky to get into games modding, and or 3d modeling at your age. I've just turned 38 and still have a lot to learn in some of these technical and artistic areas, but when you guys are learning and developing these skills at the rate you are, then by the time your in your mid to late 20's or 30`s you guys should be very skilled and experienced
I now find it difficult to comprehend how limited the computers we had when we were teen agers. one of the first computers I owned, being a 48kb sinclair spectrum, although at the time, home computers with color was ground breaking
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:31 am :
Yeah, young ones in the modding community isn't really TOO common, but it is becoming more common I think. The most important thing, in my opinion, to get younger kids into computer is to get them to play games on PCs rather than Consoles! PC Gaming opens up this whole new world for everyone, because there's not just an online gaming presence that's over a decade old, but there's also of course the amazing modding community. Eventually one thing will lead to another and the kid will soon be installing mods in their games instead of just the vanilla game. Then they'll think that's neat and want to do it themselve's.
But the only reason I got into computers and software like this at all is because of my father. When I was very young he got me into computers. And his first computer, I'm pretty sure was this one right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80. My Father and I are complete opposites though, he's a programmer and I'm an artist. And programming has to be the hardest thing I've ever tried to learn, it was the most difficult thing I had to face during web design was learning Actionscript (Macromedia Flash language). Anything to do with art though and I learn it pretty quick I think.
Oh and the first thing I got into wasn't modding though, it was web design. But I got interested in 3D after that (due to the movies.. I was like 14), THEN I got into modding games. But enough about me, I think PC Gaming is probably one of the best thing any young kid can get into, because it most likely will eventually lead to modding, which will lead to the desire to make mods .
Ok I just realized I sound like Yoda...
Quote:
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 am :
ot: understood and agreed, pc gaming is very important if new people are going to get into the modding scene, that is unless consoles catch up with pc's in the editing software etc.
I've also dabbled a little in coding with the d3 engine, but like you I'm more of an artist so didn't find coding to feel a natural process for me. I also think I'm more at home working with 3d then 2d although I've been working with the latter for decades.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:36 am :
Well I sort-of halfway forgot to make her vest accessories. I didn't really forget.. I kinda just... Skipped it for moment.
Anyway, I did all the front pockets n' stuff, now I just have to do the thing that's on her back, which really isn't all that big of a deal, I won't post it like I am posting these.
All the models are in Sub-D's, which is why they look so smooth ^_^:
Dinky@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:39 am :
I've been working on this character for a little while, and now I'm almost complete with the high res. When I make my models, I first try and make them as low polygon as possible, then send them into ZBrush for detailing. I have not sent this character to ZBrush yet, but I am pretty much done with it in Maya.
But right now, instead of detailing it in ZBrush just yet, I'm making the low poly model for when I put it into Doom 3.
Here she is in polygon form un-smoothed:
Aurra:
Aurra's gun in holster:
Aurra head:
Aurra Sing is a character from Star Wars, she was in the movie (Episode 1) but only a very brief cameo (it lasted like two seconds). But she does have Comic books and I think she's in some novels.
There are a few minor accessories I have to make, which is pockets and stuff on her vest. But that's just too simple and it doesn't matter enough to make it real quick then post screens .
Anyway, hope you like!
kat@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:04 am :
Proportions are generally good, only crit is that her hands look a tad too small? Could do with being may 10-20% larger?
Tron@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:01 am :
I'd say you could probably do a lot less polys on that gun. Look forward to seeing this normal mapped.
Dinky@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 am :
Thanks for comments and critique!
@Kat - Yeah I kinda agree with you on the hands, I'd been thinking about modifying the hands, along with shaping the arms a little bit more before I do more work to the model. Now I think I will modify the hands since now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that area looks a little off.
@Tron - You're probably right in some places, but to be honest it doesn't really matter since it's not going to be included to the final low poly game model. But you should also note that I added a few lines in-case I were to take it into ZBrush with the rest of the model, I wouldn't want certain parts of the gun to get all smoothed and rounded when I divide the entire mesh. But I may not export it to ZBrush with the character, so I could just be wasting poly's like you said.
Last night I did a little bit of the low res mesh but I was a bit too busy and tired tonight to do anything so I'll just save it for tomorrow ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 pm :
dinky, good model so far and cool star wars character you've chosen to work with
I also was thinking her hands looked a little too small, and that a low poly gun could have a lot less polys. other then those I'm wondering if the polys between her crotch and her belt could be smoothed out more, as I think they look too angular at the moment, but maybe its the angle of the screen shot.
last year I started modeling a human male for the first time, and it was a lot harder then I imagined it would to be to get the proportions and edge loops looking right, even with lots of reference images, so I appreciate the work involved involved in modeling a human or non fantasy creature.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:17 am :
@ratty redemption - Yeah, Aurra Sing is one of my favorites . And that's NOT the low poly gun. That gun actually won't be used by the character either, it will just be normal mapped onto a low res version. And the crotch is actually made correctly, because when I divide it into a few million polies in ZBrush (or turn it into Sub-d's) it smooths out properly. If I were to make them straight, then it would just be flat. That area has to look "tucked in", which is what it does right now at the position those edges are.
Anyway, I got a low res completed today, and I put her in-game as a test model. No texture yet but I'll get to that last (after I normal map her). I'll just be texturing the low res, not the high res (though I know Doom 3's Renderbump can transfer textures from high res model to low res).
Here's the screenshot of her in my Doom 3 testing ground map (low res version). It's 2022 triangles, a little high but... Meh.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:57 pm :
Your model high-polycount VS low-polycount zones is a bit strange for me.
look:
In RED zones you put some extra polys to make little details that you will only see to a very close distance (distA), but in the YELLOW zone, you optimized your torso so much that you CAN'T come near to distA and still looking as good as red zones.
Here i think you must remove these extra polys in red zone to add these in the yellow one (to keep a good hips curve).
All these "clothes thickness" polys can be normalmapped without any problem.
That's just some ideas on how i would optimize this model, nothing obligatory of course!
Good luck on your model Dinky.
PS: Isn't "Aurra Sing" the girl character that player control in one of the Jedi Knight extansion?
Rayne@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:42 pm :
those polys are there probably to mantain good looking deformations at animation time.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:43 pm :
dinky, understood and cool
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:00 pm :
@6th Venom - I appreciate you adding your own comments and critique. But I'm aware of everything you just said. As Rayne said, those polies that I added at the knee/ankle/elbows/wrists/shoulders are for animation, and since the torso won't be as extensively animated as the limbs, and even if it is animated it will be subtle and it won't really matter since it's a rather thick part of the model.
If animation points like the elbows/shoulders/ankles/etc. don't get a few more poly's for animation then it will deform VERY unrealistically. But as for the "Jacket" or the "Vest" she's wearing, I am aware that could have been added through normal mapping, but I was afraid that maybe the character silhouette would look strange in-game. Besides, I've tried to normal map similar models in the same way you're talking about, and I got a ridiculously ugly result (or atleast IMO).
And as for Aurra Sing in the Jedi Knight games, I'm not sure. Do you mean Jedi Academy when you say "extansion [expansion?]"?? If you're saying Jedi Academy then no, because I don't EVER remember Aurra Sing in that game. And as far as I've known she's only been in one game, and that's some old N64 game.
And BTW, ratty redemption I'm lovin' your "ratty d3 hell map" wip! Looks great, keep it up.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:41 am :
I used to think modeling terrain was complicated but compared to character modeling, it's relatively straight forward. I also only experimented a little with animating my human model last year, but soon realized I should of built the model from the beginning with edge loops designed for animating, rather then just an acceptable looking static mesh, and as this would of taken more time and effort to fix I put that model on hold, until I had gained more practice with static meshes in blender.
ot: thanks a lot dinky, it's really encouraging to hear some of you guys are still interested in that project of mine, since I haven't worked on it for 3 months, although that was mainly due to moving home and having to use my girlfriends pc until mine was set up, but I'm pretty much back on track again
edit: dinky, would you mind editing the size of your images on this page, as it's forcing some of us to scroll sideways to read all the text. I'm using 1024 width desktop but used to be on 800 which I imagine would require even more side scrolling.
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:59 am :
@Dinky: I think it was the 1st Jedi knight's "expansion" ( ).
And for model itself, i understand that you need extra polies were there are huge deformations, but i'm still sure they are not "optimals", but whatever...
I love the idea to see more women in Doom.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:00 am :
Rezised.
I edited the "Aurra's Head" screenshot, since that was the only one I was having probs with. From now on I'll use ImageShack's thumbnail option. I can't change these to imageshack thumbnails since I don't have their upload page anymore (I should really register there). And I could make thumbnails, but I'm just too lazy. I hope that's good enough for your tiny resolution! I'm always either running 1920x1080, 1280x720 or 1280x1024.
If she was in Jedi Outcast (which is Jedi Knight 2) then I don't remember her, but I was like 12 or something when that game came out (though I did play it a little, I spent much more time on Raven Shield [Rainbow Six]). I'm 17 now (will be 18 later this year) ^_^.
As for my model and the "optimization", if you take a look at the doom guy behind Aurra, he certainly looks a lot higher poly than Aurra, or atleast to me he does. But bah, this model is still around the limit, and compared to the Quake 4 multiplayer Marine, she only has a few more polies than him, and that's probably because she has 5 fingers, not 3 like they do (10 counting the other hand). I HATE the Doom 3 and Quake 4 models, how they don't have individual fingers, it drives me crazy.
BTW, here's the link yet again to her WookiePedia in-case you missed it at the top (or just don't want to scroll back up and find it): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aurra_Sing
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:37 am :
ot: dinky, thanks. this is much easier to read now
imo guys like you and kit89 who is a similar age to you, are very lucky to get into games modding, and or 3d modeling at your age. I've just turned 38 and still have a lot to learn in some of these technical and artistic areas, but when you guys are learning and developing these skills at the rate you are, then by the time your in your mid to late 20's or 30`s you guys should be very skilled and experienced
I now find it difficult to comprehend how limited the computers we had when we were teen agers. one of the first computers I owned, being a 48kb sinclair spectrum, although at the time, home computers with color was ground breaking
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:31 am :
Yeah, young ones in the modding community isn't really TOO common, but it is becoming more common I think. The most important thing, in my opinion, to get younger kids into computer is to get them to play games on PCs rather than Consoles! PC Gaming opens up this whole new world for everyone, because there's not just an online gaming presence that's over a decade old, but there's also of course the amazing modding community. Eventually one thing will lead to another and the kid will soon be installing mods in their games instead of just the vanilla game. Then they'll think that's neat and want to do it themselve's.
But the only reason I got into computers and software like this at all is because of my father. When I was very young he got me into computers. And his first computer, I'm pretty sure was this one right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80. My Father and I are complete opposites though, he's a programmer and I'm an artist. And programming has to be the hardest thing I've ever tried to learn, it was the most difficult thing I had to face during web design was learning Actionscript (Macromedia Flash language). Anything to do with art though and I learn it pretty quick I think.
Oh and the first thing I got into wasn't modding though, it was web design. But I got interested in 3D after that (due to the movies.. I was like 14), THEN I got into modding games. But enough about me, I think PC Gaming is probably one of the best thing any young kid can get into, because it most likely will eventually lead to modding, which will lead to the desire to make mods .
Ok I just realized I sound like Yoda...
Quote:
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 am :
ot: understood and agreed, pc gaming is very important if new people are going to get into the modding scene, that is unless consoles catch up with pc's in the editing software etc.
I've also dabbled a little in coding with the d3 engine, but like you I'm more of an artist so didn't find coding to feel a natural process for me. I also think I'm more at home working with 3d then 2d although I've been working with the latter for decades.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:36 am :
Well I sort-of halfway forgot to make her vest accessories. I didn't really forget.. I kinda just... Skipped it for moment.
Anyway, I did all the front pockets n' stuff, now I just have to do the thing that's on her back, which really isn't all that big of a deal, I won't post it like I am posting these.
All the models are in Sub-D's, which is why they look so smooth ^_^:
Dinky@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:39 am :
I've been working on this character for a little while, and now I'm almost complete with the high res. When I make my models, I first try and make them as low polygon as possible, then send them into ZBrush for detailing. I have not sent this character to ZBrush yet, but I am pretty much done with it in Maya.
But right now, instead of detailing it in ZBrush just yet, I'm making the low poly model for when I put it into Doom 3.
Here she is in polygon form un-smoothed:
Aurra:
Aurra's gun in holster:
Aurra head:
Aurra Sing is a character from Star Wars, she was in the movie (Episode 1) but only a very brief cameo (it lasted like two seconds). But she does have Comic books and I think she's in some novels.
There are a few minor accessories I have to make, which is pockets and stuff on her vest. But that's just too simple and it doesn't matter enough to make it real quick then post screens .
Anyway, hope you like!
kat@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:04 am :
Proportions are generally good, only crit is that her hands look a tad too small? Could do with being may 10-20% larger?
Tron@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:01 am :
I'd say you could probably do a lot less polys on that gun. Look forward to seeing this normal mapped.
Dinky@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 am :
Thanks for comments and critique!
@Kat - Yeah I kinda agree with you on the hands, I'd been thinking about modifying the hands, along with shaping the arms a little bit more before I do more work to the model. Now I think I will modify the hands since now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that area looks a little off.
@Tron - You're probably right in some places, but to be honest it doesn't really matter since it's not going to be included to the final low poly game model. But you should also note that I added a few lines in-case I were to take it into ZBrush with the rest of the model, I wouldn't want certain parts of the gun to get all smoothed and rounded when I divide the entire mesh. But I may not export it to ZBrush with the character, so I could just be wasting poly's like you said.
Last night I did a little bit of the low res mesh but I was a bit too busy and tired tonight to do anything so I'll just save it for tomorrow ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 pm :
dinky, good model so far and cool star wars character you've chosen to work with
I also was thinking her hands looked a little too small, and that a low poly gun could have a lot less polys. other then those I'm wondering if the polys between her crotch and her belt could be smoothed out more, as I think they look too angular at the moment, but maybe its the angle of the screen shot.
last year I started modeling a human male for the first time, and it was a lot harder then I imagined it would to be to get the proportions and edge loops looking right, even with lots of reference images, so I appreciate the work involved involved in modeling a human or non fantasy creature.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:17 am :
@ratty redemption - Yeah, Aurra Sing is one of my favorites . And that's NOT the low poly gun. That gun actually won't be used by the character either, it will just be normal mapped onto a low res version. And the crotch is actually made correctly, because when I divide it into a few million polies in ZBrush (or turn it into Sub-d's) it smooths out properly. If I were to make them straight, then it would just be flat. That area has to look "tucked in", which is what it does right now at the position those edges are.
Anyway, I got a low res completed today, and I put her in-game as a test model. No texture yet but I'll get to that last (after I normal map her). I'll just be texturing the low res, not the high res (though I know Doom 3's Renderbump can transfer textures from high res model to low res).
Here's the screenshot of her in my Doom 3 testing ground map (low res version). It's 2022 triangles, a little high but... Meh.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:57 pm :
Your model high-polycount VS low-polycount zones is a bit strange for me.
look:
In RED zones you put some extra polys to make little details that you will only see to a very close distance (distA), but in the YELLOW zone, you optimized your torso so much that you CAN'T come near to distA and still looking as good as red zones.
Here i think you must remove these extra polys in red zone to add these in the yellow one (to keep a good hips curve).
All these "clothes thickness" polys can be normalmapped without any problem.
That's just some ideas on how i would optimize this model, nothing obligatory of course!
Good luck on your model Dinky.
PS: Isn't "Aurra Sing" the girl character that player control in one of the Jedi Knight extansion?
Rayne@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:42 pm :
those polys are there probably to mantain good looking deformations at animation time.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:43 pm :
dinky, understood and cool
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:00 pm :
@6th Venom - I appreciate you adding your own comments and critique. But I'm aware of everything you just said. As Rayne said, those polies that I added at the knee/ankle/elbows/wrists/shoulders are for animation, and since the torso won't be as extensively animated as the limbs, and even if it is animated it will be subtle and it won't really matter since it's a rather thick part of the model.
If animation points like the elbows/shoulders/ankles/etc. don't get a few more poly's for animation then it will deform VERY unrealistically. But as for the "Jacket" or the "Vest" she's wearing, I am aware that could have been added through normal mapping, but I was afraid that maybe the character silhouette would look strange in-game. Besides, I've tried to normal map similar models in the same way you're talking about, and I got a ridiculously ugly result (or atleast IMO).
And as for Aurra Sing in the Jedi Knight games, I'm not sure. Do you mean Jedi Academy when you say "extansion [expansion?]"?? If you're saying Jedi Academy then no, because I don't EVER remember Aurra Sing in that game. And as far as I've known she's only been in one game, and that's some old N64 game.
And BTW, ratty redemption I'm lovin' your "ratty d3 hell map" wip! Looks great, keep it up.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:41 am :
I used to think modeling terrain was complicated but compared to character modeling, it's relatively straight forward. I also only experimented a little with animating my human model last year, but soon realized I should of built the model from the beginning with edge loops designed for animating, rather then just an acceptable looking static mesh, and as this would of taken more time and effort to fix I put that model on hold, until I had gained more practice with static meshes in blender.
ot: thanks a lot dinky, it's really encouraging to hear some of you guys are still interested in that project of mine, since I haven't worked on it for 3 months, although that was mainly due to moving home and having to use my girlfriends pc until mine was set up, but I'm pretty much back on track again
edit: dinky, would you mind editing the size of your images on this page, as it's forcing some of us to scroll sideways to read all the text. I'm using 1024 width desktop but used to be on 800 which I imagine would require even more side scrolling.
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:59 am :
@Dinky: I think it was the 1st Jedi knight's "expansion" ( ).
And for model itself, i understand that you need extra polies were there are huge deformations, but i'm still sure they are not "optimals", but whatever...
I love the idea to see more women in Doom.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:00 am :
Rezised.
I edited the "Aurra's Head" screenshot, since that was the only one I was having probs with. From now on I'll use ImageShack's thumbnail option. I can't change these to imageshack thumbnails since I don't have their upload page anymore (I should really register there). And I could make thumbnails, but I'm just too lazy. I hope that's good enough for your tiny resolution! I'm always either running 1920x1080, 1280x720 or 1280x1024.
If she was in Jedi Outcast (which is Jedi Knight 2) then I don't remember her, but I was like 12 or something when that game came out (though I did play it a little, I spent much more time on Raven Shield [Rainbow Six]). I'm 17 now (will be 18 later this year) ^_^.
As for my model and the "optimization", if you take a look at the doom guy behind Aurra, he certainly looks a lot higher poly than Aurra, or atleast to me he does. But bah, this model is still around the limit, and compared to the Quake 4 multiplayer Marine, she only has a few more polies than him, and that's probably because she has 5 fingers, not 3 like they do (10 counting the other hand). I HATE the Doom 3 and Quake 4 models, how they don't have individual fingers, it drives me crazy.
BTW, here's the link yet again to her WookiePedia in-case you missed it at the top (or just don't want to scroll back up and find it): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aurra_Sing
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:37 am :
ot: dinky, thanks. this is much easier to read now
imo guys like you and kit89 who is a similar age to you, are very lucky to get into games modding, and or 3d modeling at your age. I've just turned 38 and still have a lot to learn in some of these technical and artistic areas, but when you guys are learning and developing these skills at the rate you are, then by the time your in your mid to late 20's or 30`s you guys should be very skilled and experienced
I now find it difficult to comprehend how limited the computers we had when we were teen agers. one of the first computers I owned, being a 48kb sinclair spectrum, although at the time, home computers with color was ground breaking
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:31 am :
Yeah, young ones in the modding community isn't really TOO common, but it is becoming more common I think. The most important thing, in my opinion, to get younger kids into computer is to get them to play games on PCs rather than Consoles! PC Gaming opens up this whole new world for everyone, because there's not just an online gaming presence that's over a decade old, but there's also of course the amazing modding community. Eventually one thing will lead to another and the kid will soon be installing mods in their games instead of just the vanilla game. Then they'll think that's neat and want to do it themselve's.
But the only reason I got into computers and software like this at all is because of my father. When I was very young he got me into computers. And his first computer, I'm pretty sure was this one right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80. My Father and I are complete opposites though, he's a programmer and I'm an artist. And programming has to be the hardest thing I've ever tried to learn, it was the most difficult thing I had to face during web design was learning Actionscript (Macromedia Flash language). Anything to do with art though and I learn it pretty quick I think.
Oh and the first thing I got into wasn't modding though, it was web design. But I got interested in 3D after that (due to the movies.. I was like 14), THEN I got into modding games. But enough about me, I think PC Gaming is probably one of the best thing any young kid can get into, because it most likely will eventually lead to modding, which will lead to the desire to make mods .
Ok I just realized I sound like Yoda...
Quote:
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 am :
ot: understood and agreed, pc gaming is very important if new people are going to get into the modding scene, that is unless consoles catch up with pc's in the editing software etc.
I've also dabbled a little in coding with the d3 engine, but like you I'm more of an artist so didn't find coding to feel a natural process for me. I also think I'm more at home working with 3d then 2d although I've been working with the latter for decades.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:36 am :
Well I sort-of halfway forgot to make her vest accessories. I didn't really forget.. I kinda just... Skipped it for moment.
Anyway, I did all the front pockets n' stuff, now I just have to do the thing that's on her back, which really isn't all that big of a deal, I won't post it like I am posting these.
All the models are in Sub-D's, which is why they look so smooth ^_^:
Dinky@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:39 am :
I've been working on this character for a little while, and now I'm almost complete with the high res. When I make my models, I first try and make them as low polygon as possible, then send them into ZBrush for detailing. I have not sent this character to ZBrush yet, but I am pretty much done with it in Maya.
But right now, instead of detailing it in ZBrush just yet, I'm making the low poly model for when I put it into Doom 3.
Here she is in polygon form un-smoothed:
Aurra:
Aurra's gun in holster:
Aurra head:
Aurra Sing is a character from Star Wars, she was in the movie (Episode 1) but only a very brief cameo (it lasted like two seconds). But she does have Comic books and I think she's in some novels.
There are a few minor accessories I have to make, which is pockets and stuff on her vest. But that's just too simple and it doesn't matter enough to make it real quick then post screens .
Anyway, hope you like!
kat@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:04 am :
Proportions are generally good, only crit is that her hands look a tad too small? Could do with being may 10-20% larger?
Tron@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:01 am :
I'd say you could probably do a lot less polys on that gun. Look forward to seeing this normal mapped.
Dinky@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 am :
Thanks for comments and critique!
@Kat - Yeah I kinda agree with you on the hands, I'd been thinking about modifying the hands, along with shaping the arms a little bit more before I do more work to the model. Now I think I will modify the hands since now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that area looks a little off.
@Tron - You're probably right in some places, but to be honest it doesn't really matter since it's not going to be included to the final low poly game model. But you should also note that I added a few lines in-case I were to take it into ZBrush with the rest of the model, I wouldn't want certain parts of the gun to get all smoothed and rounded when I divide the entire mesh. But I may not export it to ZBrush with the character, so I could just be wasting poly's like you said.
Last night I did a little bit of the low res mesh but I was a bit too busy and tired tonight to do anything so I'll just save it for tomorrow ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 pm :
dinky, good model so far and cool star wars character you've chosen to work with
I also was thinking her hands looked a little too small, and that a low poly gun could have a lot less polys. other then those I'm wondering if the polys between her crotch and her belt could be smoothed out more, as I think they look too angular at the moment, but maybe its the angle of the screen shot.
last year I started modeling a human male for the first time, and it was a lot harder then I imagined it would to be to get the proportions and edge loops looking right, even with lots of reference images, so I appreciate the work involved involved in modeling a human or non fantasy creature.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:17 am :
@ratty redemption - Yeah, Aurra Sing is one of my favorites . And that's NOT the low poly gun. That gun actually won't be used by the character either, it will just be normal mapped onto a low res version. And the crotch is actually made correctly, because when I divide it into a few million polies in ZBrush (or turn it into Sub-d's) it smooths out properly. If I were to make them straight, then it would just be flat. That area has to look "tucked in", which is what it does right now at the position those edges are.
Anyway, I got a low res completed today, and I put her in-game as a test model. No texture yet but I'll get to that last (after I normal map her). I'll just be texturing the low res, not the high res (though I know Doom 3's Renderbump can transfer textures from high res model to low res).
Here's the screenshot of her in my Doom 3 testing ground map (low res version). It's 2022 triangles, a little high but... Meh.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:57 pm :
Your model high-polycount VS low-polycount zones is a bit strange for me.
look:
In RED zones you put some extra polys to make little details that you will only see to a very close distance (distA), but in the YELLOW zone, you optimized your torso so much that you CAN'T come near to distA and still looking as good as red zones.
Here i think you must remove these extra polys in red zone to add these in the yellow one (to keep a good hips curve).
All these "clothes thickness" polys can be normalmapped without any problem.
That's just some ideas on how i would optimize this model, nothing obligatory of course!
Good luck on your model Dinky.
PS: Isn't "Aurra Sing" the girl character that player control in one of the Jedi Knight extansion?
Rayne@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:42 pm :
those polys are there probably to mantain good looking deformations at animation time.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:43 pm :
dinky, understood and cool
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:00 pm :
@6th Venom - I appreciate you adding your own comments and critique. But I'm aware of everything you just said. As Rayne said, those polies that I added at the knee/ankle/elbows/wrists/shoulders are for animation, and since the torso won't be as extensively animated as the limbs, and even if it is animated it will be subtle and it won't really matter since it's a rather thick part of the model.
If animation points like the elbows/shoulders/ankles/etc. don't get a few more poly's for animation then it will deform VERY unrealistically. But as for the "Jacket" or the "Vest" she's wearing, I am aware that could have been added through normal mapping, but I was afraid that maybe the character silhouette would look strange in-game. Besides, I've tried to normal map similar models in the same way you're talking about, and I got a ridiculously ugly result (or atleast IMO).
And as for Aurra Sing in the Jedi Knight games, I'm not sure. Do you mean Jedi Academy when you say "extansion [expansion?]"?? If you're saying Jedi Academy then no, because I don't EVER remember Aurra Sing in that game. And as far as I've known she's only been in one game, and that's some old N64 game.
And BTW, ratty redemption I'm lovin' your "ratty d3 hell map" wip! Looks great, keep it up.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:41 am :
I used to think modeling terrain was complicated but compared to character modeling, it's relatively straight forward. I also only experimented a little with animating my human model last year, but soon realized I should of built the model from the beginning with edge loops designed for animating, rather then just an acceptable looking static mesh, and as this would of taken more time and effort to fix I put that model on hold, until I had gained more practice with static meshes in blender.
ot: thanks a lot dinky, it's really encouraging to hear some of you guys are still interested in that project of mine, since I haven't worked on it for 3 months, although that was mainly due to moving home and having to use my girlfriends pc until mine was set up, but I'm pretty much back on track again
edit: dinky, would you mind editing the size of your images on this page, as it's forcing some of us to scroll sideways to read all the text. I'm using 1024 width desktop but used to be on 800 which I imagine would require even more side scrolling.
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:59 am :
@Dinky: I think it was the 1st Jedi knight's "expansion" ( ).
And for model itself, i understand that you need extra polies were there are huge deformations, but i'm still sure they are not "optimals", but whatever...
I love the idea to see more women in Doom.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:00 am :
Rezised.
I edited the "Aurra's Head" screenshot, since that was the only one I was having probs with. From now on I'll use ImageShack's thumbnail option. I can't change these to imageshack thumbnails since I don't have their upload page anymore (I should really register there). And I could make thumbnails, but I'm just too lazy. I hope that's good enough for your tiny resolution! I'm always either running 1920x1080, 1280x720 or 1280x1024.
If she was in Jedi Outcast (which is Jedi Knight 2) then I don't remember her, but I was like 12 or something when that game came out (though I did play it a little, I spent much more time on Raven Shield [Rainbow Six]). I'm 17 now (will be 18 later this year) ^_^.
As for my model and the "optimization", if you take a look at the doom guy behind Aurra, he certainly looks a lot higher poly than Aurra, or atleast to me he does. But bah, this model is still around the limit, and compared to the Quake 4 multiplayer Marine, she only has a few more polies than him, and that's probably because she has 5 fingers, not 3 like they do (10 counting the other hand). I HATE the Doom 3 and Quake 4 models, how they don't have individual fingers, it drives me crazy.
BTW, here's the link yet again to her WookiePedia in-case you missed it at the top (or just don't want to scroll back up and find it): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aurra_Sing
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:37 am :
ot: dinky, thanks. this is much easier to read now
imo guys like you and kit89 who is a similar age to you, are very lucky to get into games modding, and or 3d modeling at your age. I've just turned 38 and still have a lot to learn in some of these technical and artistic areas, but when you guys are learning and developing these skills at the rate you are, then by the time your in your mid to late 20's or 30`s you guys should be very skilled and experienced
I now find it difficult to comprehend how limited the computers we had when we were teen agers. one of the first computers I owned, being a 48kb sinclair spectrum, although at the time, home computers with color was ground breaking
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:31 am :
Yeah, young ones in the modding community isn't really TOO common, but it is becoming more common I think. The most important thing, in my opinion, to get younger kids into computer is to get them to play games on PCs rather than Consoles! PC Gaming opens up this whole new world for everyone, because there's not just an online gaming presence that's over a decade old, but there's also of course the amazing modding community. Eventually one thing will lead to another and the kid will soon be installing mods in their games instead of just the vanilla game. Then they'll think that's neat and want to do it themselve's.
But the only reason I got into computers and software like this at all is because of my father. When I was very young he got me into computers. And his first computer, I'm pretty sure was this one right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80. My Father and I are complete opposites though, he's a programmer and I'm an artist. And programming has to be the hardest thing I've ever tried to learn, it was the most difficult thing I had to face during web design was learning Actionscript (Macromedia Flash language). Anything to do with art though and I learn it pretty quick I think.
Oh and the first thing I got into wasn't modding though, it was web design. But I got interested in 3D after that (due to the movies.. I was like 14), THEN I got into modding games. But enough about me, I think PC Gaming is probably one of the best thing any young kid can get into, because it most likely will eventually lead to modding, which will lead to the desire to make mods .
Ok I just realized I sound like Yoda...
Quote:
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 am :
ot: understood and agreed, pc gaming is very important if new people are going to get into the modding scene, that is unless consoles catch up with pc's in the editing software etc.
I've also dabbled a little in coding with the d3 engine, but like you I'm more of an artist so didn't find coding to feel a natural process for me. I also think I'm more at home working with 3d then 2d although I've been working with the latter for decades.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:36 am :
Well I sort-of halfway forgot to make her vest accessories. I didn't really forget.. I kinda just... Skipped it for moment.
Anyway, I did all the front pockets n' stuff, now I just have to do the thing that's on her back, which really isn't all that big of a deal, I won't post it like I am posting these.
All the models are in Sub-D's, which is why they look so smooth ^_^:
Dinky@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:39 am :
I've been working on this character for a little while, and now I'm almost complete with the high res. When I make my models, I first try and make them as low polygon as possible, then send them into ZBrush for detailing. I have not sent this character to ZBrush yet, but I am pretty much done with it in Maya.
But right now, instead of detailing it in ZBrush just yet, I'm making the low poly model for when I put it into Doom 3.
Here she is in polygon form un-smoothed:
Aurra:
Aurra's gun in holster:
Aurra head:
Aurra Sing is a character from Star Wars, she was in the movie (Episode 1) but only a very brief cameo (it lasted like two seconds). But she does have Comic books and I think she's in some novels.
There are a few minor accessories I have to make, which is pockets and stuff on her vest. But that's just too simple and it doesn't matter enough to make it real quick then post screens .
Anyway, hope you like!
kat@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:04 am :
Proportions are generally good, only crit is that her hands look a tad too small? Could do with being may 10-20% larger?
Tron@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:01 am :
I'd say you could probably do a lot less polys on that gun. Look forward to seeing this normal mapped.
Dinky@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 am :
Thanks for comments and critique!
@Kat - Yeah I kinda agree with you on the hands, I'd been thinking about modifying the hands, along with shaping the arms a little bit more before I do more work to the model. Now I think I will modify the hands since now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that area looks a little off.
@Tron - You're probably right in some places, but to be honest it doesn't really matter since it's not going to be included to the final low poly game model. But you should also note that I added a few lines in-case I were to take it into ZBrush with the rest of the model, I wouldn't want certain parts of the gun to get all smoothed and rounded when I divide the entire mesh. But I may not export it to ZBrush with the character, so I could just be wasting poly's like you said.
Last night I did a little bit of the low res mesh but I was a bit too busy and tired tonight to do anything so I'll just save it for tomorrow ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 pm :
dinky, good model so far and cool star wars character you've chosen to work with
I also was thinking her hands looked a little too small, and that a low poly gun could have a lot less polys. other then those I'm wondering if the polys between her crotch and her belt could be smoothed out more, as I think they look too angular at the moment, but maybe its the angle of the screen shot.
last year I started modeling a human male for the first time, and it was a lot harder then I imagined it would to be to get the proportions and edge loops looking right, even with lots of reference images, so I appreciate the work involved involved in modeling a human or non fantasy creature.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:17 am :
@ratty redemption - Yeah, Aurra Sing is one of my favorites . And that's NOT the low poly gun. That gun actually won't be used by the character either, it will just be normal mapped onto a low res version. And the crotch is actually made correctly, because when I divide it into a few million polies in ZBrush (or turn it into Sub-d's) it smooths out properly. If I were to make them straight, then it would just be flat. That area has to look "tucked in", which is what it does right now at the position those edges are.
Anyway, I got a low res completed today, and I put her in-game as a test model. No texture yet but I'll get to that last (after I normal map her). I'll just be texturing the low res, not the high res (though I know Doom 3's Renderbump can transfer textures from high res model to low res).
Here's the screenshot of her in my Doom 3 testing ground map (low res version). It's 2022 triangles, a little high but... Meh.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:57 pm :
Your model high-polycount VS low-polycount zones is a bit strange for me.
look:
In RED zones you put some extra polys to make little details that you will only see to a very close distance (distA), but in the YELLOW zone, you optimized your torso so much that you CAN'T come near to distA and still looking as good as red zones.
Here i think you must remove these extra polys in red zone to add these in the yellow one (to keep a good hips curve).
All these "clothes thickness" polys can be normalmapped without any problem.
That's just some ideas on how i would optimize this model, nothing obligatory of course!
Good luck on your model Dinky.
PS: Isn't "Aurra Sing" the girl character that player control in one of the Jedi Knight extansion?
Rayne@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:42 pm :
those polys are there probably to mantain good looking deformations at animation time.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:43 pm :
dinky, understood and cool
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:00 pm :
@6th Venom - I appreciate you adding your own comments and critique. But I'm aware of everything you just said. As Rayne said, those polies that I added at the knee/ankle/elbows/wrists/shoulders are for animation, and since the torso won't be as extensively animated as the limbs, and even if it is animated it will be subtle and it won't really matter since it's a rather thick part of the model.
If animation points like the elbows/shoulders/ankles/etc. don't get a few more poly's for animation then it will deform VERY unrealistically. But as for the "Jacket" or the "Vest" she's wearing, I am aware that could have been added through normal mapping, but I was afraid that maybe the character silhouette would look strange in-game. Besides, I've tried to normal map similar models in the same way you're talking about, and I got a ridiculously ugly result (or atleast IMO).
And as for Aurra Sing in the Jedi Knight games, I'm not sure. Do you mean Jedi Academy when you say "extansion [expansion?]"?? If you're saying Jedi Academy then no, because I don't EVER remember Aurra Sing in that game. And as far as I've known she's only been in one game, and that's some old N64 game.
And BTW, ratty redemption I'm lovin' your "ratty d3 hell map" wip! Looks great, keep it up.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:41 am :
I used to think modeling terrain was complicated but compared to character modeling, it's relatively straight forward. I also only experimented a little with animating my human model last year, but soon realized I should of built the model from the beginning with edge loops designed for animating, rather then just an acceptable looking static mesh, and as this would of taken more time and effort to fix I put that model on hold, until I had gained more practice with static meshes in blender.
ot: thanks a lot dinky, it's really encouraging to hear some of you guys are still interested in that project of mine, since I haven't worked on it for 3 months, although that was mainly due to moving home and having to use my girlfriends pc until mine was set up, but I'm pretty much back on track again
edit: dinky, would you mind editing the size of your images on this page, as it's forcing some of us to scroll sideways to read all the text. I'm using 1024 width desktop but used to be on 800 which I imagine would require even more side scrolling.
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:59 am :
@Dinky: I think it was the 1st Jedi knight's "expansion" ( ).
And for model itself, i understand that you need extra polies were there are huge deformations, but i'm still sure they are not "optimals", but whatever...
I love the idea to see more women in Doom.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:00 am :
Rezised.
I edited the "Aurra's Head" screenshot, since that was the only one I was having probs with. From now on I'll use ImageShack's thumbnail option. I can't change these to imageshack thumbnails since I don't have their upload page anymore (I should really register there). And I could make thumbnails, but I'm just too lazy. I hope that's good enough for your tiny resolution! I'm always either running 1920x1080, 1280x720 or 1280x1024.
If she was in Jedi Outcast (which is Jedi Knight 2) then I don't remember her, but I was like 12 or something when that game came out (though I did play it a little, I spent much more time on Raven Shield [Rainbow Six]). I'm 17 now (will be 18 later this year) ^_^.
As for my model and the "optimization", if you take a look at the doom guy behind Aurra, he certainly looks a lot higher poly than Aurra, or atleast to me he does. But bah, this model is still around the limit, and compared to the Quake 4 multiplayer Marine, she only has a few more polies than him, and that's probably because she has 5 fingers, not 3 like they do (10 counting the other hand). I HATE the Doom 3 and Quake 4 models, how they don't have individual fingers, it drives me crazy.
BTW, here's the link yet again to her WookiePedia in-case you missed it at the top (or just don't want to scroll back up and find it): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aurra_Sing
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:37 am :
ot: dinky, thanks. this is much easier to read now
imo guys like you and kit89 who is a similar age to you, are very lucky to get into games modding, and or 3d modeling at your age. I've just turned 38 and still have a lot to learn in some of these technical and artistic areas, but when you guys are learning and developing these skills at the rate you are, then by the time your in your mid to late 20's or 30`s you guys should be very skilled and experienced
I now find it difficult to comprehend how limited the computers we had when we were teen agers. one of the first computers I owned, being a 48kb sinclair spectrum, although at the time, home computers with color was ground breaking
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:31 am :
Yeah, young ones in the modding community isn't really TOO common, but it is becoming more common I think. The most important thing, in my opinion, to get younger kids into computer is to get them to play games on PCs rather than Consoles! PC Gaming opens up this whole new world for everyone, because there's not just an online gaming presence that's over a decade old, but there's also of course the amazing modding community. Eventually one thing will lead to another and the kid will soon be installing mods in their games instead of just the vanilla game. Then they'll think that's neat and want to do it themselve's.
But the only reason I got into computers and software like this at all is because of my father. When I was very young he got me into computers. And his first computer, I'm pretty sure was this one right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80. My Father and I are complete opposites though, he's a programmer and I'm an artist. And programming has to be the hardest thing I've ever tried to learn, it was the most difficult thing I had to face during web design was learning Actionscript (Macromedia Flash language). Anything to do with art though and I learn it pretty quick I think.
Oh and the first thing I got into wasn't modding though, it was web design. But I got interested in 3D after that (due to the movies.. I was like 14), THEN I got into modding games. But enough about me, I think PC Gaming is probably one of the best thing any young kid can get into, because it most likely will eventually lead to modding, which will lead to the desire to make mods .
Ok I just realized I sound like Yoda...
Quote:
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 am :
ot: understood and agreed, pc gaming is very important if new people are going to get into the modding scene, that is unless consoles catch up with pc's in the editing software etc.
I've also dabbled a little in coding with the d3 engine, but like you I'm more of an artist so didn't find coding to feel a natural process for me. I also think I'm more at home working with 3d then 2d although I've been working with the latter for decades.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:36 am :
Well I sort-of halfway forgot to make her vest accessories. I didn't really forget.. I kinda just... Skipped it for moment.
Anyway, I did all the front pockets n' stuff, now I just have to do the thing that's on her back, which really isn't all that big of a deal, I won't post it like I am posting these.
All the models are in Sub-D's, which is why they look so smooth ^_^:
Dinky@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:39 am :
I've been working on this character for a little while, and now I'm almost complete with the high res. When I make my models, I first try and make them as low polygon as possible, then send them into ZBrush for detailing. I have not sent this character to ZBrush yet, but I am pretty much done with it in Maya.
But right now, instead of detailing it in ZBrush just yet, I'm making the low poly model for when I put it into Doom 3.
Here she is in polygon form un-smoothed:
Aurra:
Aurra's gun in holster:
Aurra head:
Aurra Sing is a character from Star Wars, she was in the movie (Episode 1) but only a very brief cameo (it lasted like two seconds). But she does have Comic books and I think she's in some novels.
There are a few minor accessories I have to make, which is pockets and stuff on her vest. But that's just too simple and it doesn't matter enough to make it real quick then post screens .
Anyway, hope you like!
kat@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:04 am :
Proportions are generally good, only crit is that her hands look a tad too small? Could do with being may 10-20% larger?
Tron@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:01 am :
I'd say you could probably do a lot less polys on that gun. Look forward to seeing this normal mapped.
Dinky@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 am :
Thanks for comments and critique!
@Kat - Yeah I kinda agree with you on the hands, I'd been thinking about modifying the hands, along with shaping the arms a little bit more before I do more work to the model. Now I think I will modify the hands since now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that area looks a little off.
@Tron - You're probably right in some places, but to be honest it doesn't really matter since it's not going to be included to the final low poly game model. But you should also note that I added a few lines in-case I were to take it into ZBrush with the rest of the model, I wouldn't want certain parts of the gun to get all smoothed and rounded when I divide the entire mesh. But I may not export it to ZBrush with the character, so I could just be wasting poly's like you said.
Last night I did a little bit of the low res mesh but I was a bit too busy and tired tonight to do anything so I'll just save it for tomorrow ^_^.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:53 pm :
dinky, good model so far and cool star wars character you've chosen to work with
I also was thinking her hands looked a little too small, and that a low poly gun could have a lot less polys. other then those I'm wondering if the polys between her crotch and her belt could be smoothed out more, as I think they look too angular at the moment, but maybe its the angle of the screen shot.
last year I started modeling a human male for the first time, and it was a lot harder then I imagined it would to be to get the proportions and edge loops looking right, even with lots of reference images, so I appreciate the work involved involved in modeling a human or non fantasy creature.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:17 am :
@ratty redemption - Yeah, Aurra Sing is one of my favorites . And that's NOT the low poly gun. That gun actually won't be used by the character either, it will just be normal mapped onto a low res version. And the crotch is actually made correctly, because when I divide it into a few million polies in ZBrush (or turn it into Sub-d's) it smooths out properly. If I were to make them straight, then it would just be flat. That area has to look "tucked in", which is what it does right now at the position those edges are.
Anyway, I got a low res completed today, and I put her in-game as a test model. No texture yet but I'll get to that last (after I normal map her). I'll just be texturing the low res, not the high res (though I know Doom 3's Renderbump can transfer textures from high res model to low res).
Here's the screenshot of her in my Doom 3 testing ground map (low res version). It's 2022 triangles, a little high but... Meh.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:57 pm :
Your model high-polycount VS low-polycount zones is a bit strange for me.
look:
In RED zones you put some extra polys to make little details that you will only see to a very close distance (distA), but in the YELLOW zone, you optimized your torso so much that you CAN'T come near to distA and still looking as good as red zones.
Here i think you must remove these extra polys in red zone to add these in the yellow one (to keep a good hips curve).
All these "clothes thickness" polys can be normalmapped without any problem.
That's just some ideas on how i would optimize this model, nothing obligatory of course!
Good luck on your model Dinky.
PS: Isn't "Aurra Sing" the girl character that player control in one of the Jedi Knight extansion?
Rayne@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:42 pm :
those polys are there probably to mantain good looking deformations at animation time.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:43 pm :
dinky, understood and cool
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:00 pm :
@6th Venom - I appreciate you adding your own comments and critique. But I'm aware of everything you just said. As Rayne said, those polies that I added at the knee/ankle/elbows/wrists/shoulders are for animation, and since the torso won't be as extensively animated as the limbs, and even if it is animated it will be subtle and it won't really matter since it's a rather thick part of the model.
If animation points like the elbows/shoulders/ankles/etc. don't get a few more poly's for animation then it will deform VERY unrealistically. But as for the "Jacket" or the "Vest" she's wearing, I am aware that could have been added through normal mapping, but I was afraid that maybe the character silhouette would look strange in-game. Besides, I've tried to normal map similar models in the same way you're talking about, and I got a ridiculously ugly result (or atleast IMO).
And as for Aurra Sing in the Jedi Knight games, I'm not sure. Do you mean Jedi Academy when you say "extansion [expansion?]"?? If you're saying Jedi Academy then no, because I don't EVER remember Aurra Sing in that game. And as far as I've known she's only been in one game, and that's some old N64 game.
And BTW, ratty redemption I'm lovin' your "ratty d3 hell map" wip! Looks great, keep it up.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:41 am :
I used to think modeling terrain was complicated but compared to character modeling, it's relatively straight forward. I also only experimented a little with animating my human model last year, but soon realized I should of built the model from the beginning with edge loops designed for animating, rather then just an acceptable looking static mesh, and as this would of taken more time and effort to fix I put that model on hold, until I had gained more practice with static meshes in blender.
ot: thanks a lot dinky, it's really encouraging to hear some of you guys are still interested in that project of mine, since I haven't worked on it for 3 months, although that was mainly due to moving home and having to use my girlfriends pc until mine was set up, but I'm pretty much back on track again
edit: dinky, would you mind editing the size of your images on this page, as it's forcing some of us to scroll sideways to read all the text. I'm using 1024 width desktop but used to be on 800 which I imagine would require even more side scrolling.
6th Venom@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:59 am :
@Dinky: I think it was the 1st Jedi knight's "expansion" ( ).
And for model itself, i understand that you need extra polies were there are huge deformations, but i'm still sure they are not "optimals", but whatever...
I love the idea to see more women in Doom.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:00 am :
Rezised.
I edited the "Aurra's Head" screenshot, since that was the only one I was having probs with. From now on I'll use ImageShack's thumbnail option. I can't change these to imageshack thumbnails since I don't have their upload page anymore (I should really register there). And I could make thumbnails, but I'm just too lazy. I hope that's good enough for your tiny resolution! I'm always either running 1920x1080, 1280x720 or 1280x1024.
If she was in Jedi Outcast (which is Jedi Knight 2) then I don't remember her, but I was like 12 or something when that game came out (though I did play it a little, I spent much more time on Raven Shield [Rainbow Six]). I'm 17 now (will be 18 later this year) ^_^.
As for my model and the "optimization", if you take a look at the doom guy behind Aurra, he certainly looks a lot higher poly than Aurra, or atleast to me he does. But bah, this model is still around the limit, and compared to the Quake 4 multiplayer Marine, she only has a few more polies than him, and that's probably because she has 5 fingers, not 3 like they do (10 counting the other hand). I HATE the Doom 3 and Quake 4 models, how they don't have individual fingers, it drives me crazy.
BTW, here's the link yet again to her WookiePedia in-case you missed it at the top (or just don't want to scroll back up and find it): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aurra_Sing
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:37 am :
ot: dinky, thanks. this is much easier to read now
imo guys like you and kit89 who is a similar age to you, are very lucky to get into games modding, and or 3d modeling at your age. I've just turned 38 and still have a lot to learn in some of these technical and artistic areas, but when you guys are learning and developing these skills at the rate you are, then by the time your in your mid to late 20's or 30`s you guys should be very skilled and experienced
I now find it difficult to comprehend how limited the computers we had when we were teen agers. one of the first computers I owned, being a 48kb sinclair spectrum, although at the time, home computers with color was ground breaking
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:31 am :
Yeah, young ones in the modding community isn't really TOO common, but it is becoming more common I think. The most important thing, in my opinion, to get younger kids into computer is to get them to play games on PCs rather than Consoles! PC Gaming opens up this whole new world for everyone, because there's not just an online gaming presence that's over a decade old, but there's also of course the amazing modding community. Eventually one thing will lead to another and the kid will soon be installing mods in their games instead of just the vanilla game. Then they'll think that's neat and want to do it themselve's.
But the only reason I got into computers and software like this at all is because of my father. When I was very young he got me into computers. And his first computer, I'm pretty sure was this one right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80. My Father and I are complete opposites though, he's a programmer and I'm an artist. And programming has to be the hardest thing I've ever tried to learn, it was the most difficult thing I had to face during web design was learning Actionscript (Macromedia Flash language). Anything to do with art though and I learn it pretty quick I think.
Oh and the first thing I got into wasn't modding though, it was web design. But I got interested in 3D after that (due to the movies.. I was like 14), THEN I got into modding games. But enough about me, I think PC Gaming is probably one of the best thing any young kid can get into, because it most likely will eventually lead to modding, which will lead to the desire to make mods .
Ok I just realized I sound like Yoda...
Quote:
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
ratty redemption@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 am :
ot: understood and agreed, pc gaming is very important if new people are going to get into the modding scene, that is unless consoles catch up with pc's in the editing software etc.
I've also dabbled a little in coding with the d3 engine, but like you I'm more of an artist so didn't find coding to feel a natural process for me. I also think I'm more at home working with 3d then 2d although I've been working with the latter for decades.
Dinky@Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:36 am :
Well I sort-of halfway forgot to make her vest accessories. I didn't really forget.. I kinda just... Skipped it for moment.
Anyway, I did all the front pockets n' stuff, now I just have to do the thing that's on her back, which really isn't all that big of a deal, I won't post it like I am posting these.
All the models are in Sub-D's, which is why they look so smooth ^_^:
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:32 am Post subject: :
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Still WIP!
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:45 am Post subject: :
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds. _________________ Co-Admin - Modelling and modding tutorials and tips
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:05 am Post subject: :
wow, that's looking considerably better then the lower poly versions, although they were good _________________ (wip) ratty d3 hell map katsbits.com
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:21 am Post subject: :
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:40 am Post subject: :
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after. _________________ Co-Admin - Modelling and modding tutorials and tips
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:58 am Post subject: :
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
modern@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:11 pm Post subject: :
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:59 pm Post subject: :
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject: :
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model? _________________ (wip) ratty d3 hell map katsbits.com
kit89@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:49 pm Post subject: :
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Last edited by kit89 on Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:18 pm Post subject: :
kit89 wrote:
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:32 am :
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Still WIP!
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:45 am :
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:05 am :
wow, that's looking considerably better then the lower poly versions, although they were good
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:40 am :
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:58 am :
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
modern@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:11 pm :
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:59 pm :
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:07 pm :
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
kit89@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:49 pm :
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:18 pm :
kit89 wrote:
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
Dinky@Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:09 am :
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:06 am :
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Tron@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:05 am :
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:26 am :
Tron wrote:
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:08 am :
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Tron@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:09 am :
How about you give us more information, post a screenshot of exactly how the normal map isn't appearing right? It's likely just some simple error so should be easy to fix, unless you are doing something totally wrong in regards to the model.
I've used the RenderBump feature before and it worked fine.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:22 am :
Doom 3 world • View topic - Aurra Sing
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4885 Location: UK, York
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4885 Location: UK, York
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 730 Location: milton keynes, england
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Last edited by kit89 on Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
How about you give us more information, post a screenshot of exactly how the normal map isn't appearing right? It's likely just some simple error so should be easy to fix, unless you are doing something totally wrong in regards to the model.
I've used the RenderBump feature before and it worked fine.
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Still WIP!
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:45 am :
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:05 am :
wow, that's looking considerably better then the lower poly versions, although they were good
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:40 am :
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:58 am :
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
modern@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:11 pm :
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:59 pm :
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:07 pm :
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
kit89@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:49 pm :
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:18 pm :
kit89 wrote:
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
Dinky@Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:09 am :
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:06 am :
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Tron@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:05 am :
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:26 am :
Tron wrote:
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:08 am :
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Tron@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:09 am :
How about you give us more information, post a screenshot of exactly how the normal map isn't appearing right? It's likely just some simple error so should be easy to fix, unless you are doing something totally wrong in regards to the model.
I've used the RenderBump feature before and it worked fine.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:32 am :
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Still WIP!
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:45 am :
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:05 am :
wow, that's looking considerably better then the lower poly versions, although they were good
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:40 am :
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:58 am :
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
modern@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:11 pm :
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:59 pm :
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:07 pm :
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
kit89@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:49 pm :
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:18 pm :
kit89 wrote:
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
Dinky@Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:09 am :
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:06 am :
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Tron@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:05 am :
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:26 am :
Tron wrote:
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:08 am :
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Tron@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:09 am :
Doom3world • View topic - Aurra Sing
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4943 Location: UK, York
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4943 Location: UK, York
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 971 Location: milton keynes, england
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Last edited by kit89 on Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Still WIP!
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:45 am :
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:05 am :
wow, that's looking considerably better then the lower poly versions, although they were good
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:40 am :
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:58 am :
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
modern@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:11 pm :
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:59 pm :
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:07 pm :
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
kit89@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:49 pm :
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:18 pm :
kit89 wrote:
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
Dinky@Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:09 am :
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:06 am :
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Tron@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:05 am :
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:26 am :
Tron wrote:
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:08 am :
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Tron@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:09 am :
How about you give us more information, post a screenshot of exactly how the normal map isn't appearing right? It's likely just some simple error so should be easy to fix, unless you are doing something totally wrong in regards to the model.
I've used the RenderBump feature before and it worked fine.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:32 am :
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Still WIP!
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:45 am :
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:05 am :
wow, that's looking considerably better then the lower poly versions, although they were good
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:40 am :
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:58 am :
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
modern@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:11 pm :
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:59 pm :
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:07 pm :
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
kit89@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:49 pm :
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:18 pm :
kit89 wrote:
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
Dinky@Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:09 am :
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:06 am :
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Tron@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:05 am :
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:26 am :
Tron wrote:
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:08 am :
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Tron@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:09 am :
Doom3world • View topic - Aurra Sing
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 954 Location: milton keynes, england
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Last edited by kit89 on Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Still WIP!
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:45 am :
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:05 am :
wow, that's looking considerably better then the lower poly versions, although they were good
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:40 am :
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:58 am :
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
modern@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:11 pm :
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:59 pm :
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:07 pm :
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
kit89@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:49 pm :
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:18 pm :
kit89 wrote:
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
Dinky@Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:09 am :
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:06 am :
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Tron@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:05 am :
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:26 am :
Tron wrote:
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:08 am :
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Tron@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:09 am :
Doom3world • View topic - Aurra Sing
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 954 Location: milton keynes, england
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Last edited by kit89 on Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Still WIP!
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:45 am :
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:05 am :
wow, that's looking considerably better then the lower poly versions, although they were good
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:40 am :
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:58 am :
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
modern@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:11 pm :
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:59 pm :
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:07 pm :
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
kit89@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:49 pm :
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:18 pm :
kit89 wrote:
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
Dinky@Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:09 am :
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:06 am :
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Tron@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:05 am :
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:26 am :
Tron wrote:
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:08 am :
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Tron@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:09 am :
Doom3world • View topic - Aurra Sing
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 952 Location: milton keynes, england
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Last edited by kit89 on Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Still WIP!
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:45 am :
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:05 am :
wow, that's looking considerably better then the lower poly versions, although they were good
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:40 am :
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:58 am :
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
modern@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:11 pm :
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:59 pm :
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:07 pm :
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
kit89@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:49 pm :
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:18 pm :
kit89 wrote:
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
Dinky@Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:09 am :
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:06 am :
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Tron@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:05 am :
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:26 am :
Tron wrote:
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:08 am :
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Tron@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:09 am :
How about you give us more information, post a screenshot of exactly how the normal map isn't appearing right? It's likely just some simple error so should be easy to fix, unless you are doing something totally wrong in regards to the model.
I've used the RenderBump feature before and it worked fine.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:32 am :
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Still WIP!
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:45 am :
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:05 am :
wow, that's looking considerably better then the lower poly versions, although they were good
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:40 am :
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:58 am :
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
modern@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:11 pm :
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:59 pm :
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:07 pm :
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
kit89@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:49 pm :
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:18 pm :
kit89 wrote:
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
Dinky@Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:09 am :
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:06 am :
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Tron@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:05 am :
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:26 am :
Tron wrote:
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:08 am :
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Tron@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:09 am :
Doom3world • View topic - Aurra Sing
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4943 Location: UK, York
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4943 Location: UK, York
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 972 Location: milton keynes, england
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Last edited by kit89 on Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Still WIP!
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:45 am :
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:05 am :
wow, that's looking considerably better then the lower poly versions, although they were good
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:40 am :
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:58 am :
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
modern@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:11 pm :
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:59 pm :
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:07 pm :
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
kit89@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:49 pm :
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:18 pm :
kit89 wrote:
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
Dinky@Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:09 am :
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:06 am :
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Tron@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:05 am :
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:26 am :
Tron wrote:
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:08 am :
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Tron@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:09 am :
How about you give us more information, post a screenshot of exactly how the normal map isn't appearing right? It's likely just some simple error so should be easy to fix, unless you are doing something totally wrong in regards to the model.
I've used the RenderBump feature before and it worked fine.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:32 am :
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Still WIP!
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:45 am :
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:05 am :
wow, that's looking considerably better then the lower poly versions, although they were good
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:40 am :
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:58 am :
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
modern@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:11 pm :
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:59 pm :
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:07 pm :
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
kit89@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:49 pm :
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:18 pm :
kit89 wrote:
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
Dinky@Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:09 am :
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:06 am :
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Tron@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:05 am :
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:26 am :
Tron wrote:
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:08 am :
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Tron@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:09 am :
How about you give us more information, post a screenshot of exactly how the normal map isn't appearing right? It's likely just some simple error so should be easy to fix, unless you are doing something totally wrong in regards to the model.
I've used the RenderBump feature before and it worked fine.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:32 am :
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Still WIP!
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:45 am :
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:05 am :
wow, that's looking considerably better then the lower poly versions, although they were good
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:40 am :
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:58 am :
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
modern@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:11 pm :
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:59 pm :
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:07 pm :
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
kit89@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:49 pm :
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:18 pm :
kit89 wrote:
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
Dinky@Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:09 am :
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:06 am :
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Tron@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:05 am :
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:26 am :
Tron wrote:
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:08 am :
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Tron@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:09 am :
How about you give us more information, post a screenshot of exactly how the normal map isn't appearing right? It's likely just some simple error so should be easy to fix, unless you are doing something totally wrong in regards to the model.
I've used the RenderBump feature before and it worked fine.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:32 am :
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Still WIP!
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:45 am :
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:05 am :
wow, that's looking considerably better then the lower poly versions, although they were good
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:40 am :
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:58 am :
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
modern@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:11 pm :
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:59 pm :
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:07 pm :
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
kit89@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:49 pm :
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:18 pm :
kit89 wrote:
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
Dinky@Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:09 am :
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:06 am :
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Tron@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:05 am :
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:26 am :
Tron wrote:
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:08 am :
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Tron@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:09 am :
Doom3world • View topic - Aurra Sing
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4940 Location: UK, York
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 951 Location: milton keynes, england
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Last edited by kit89 on Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Still WIP!
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:45 am :
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:05 am :
wow, that's looking considerably better then the lower poly versions, although they were good
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:40 am :
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:58 am :
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
modern@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:11 pm :
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:59 pm :
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:07 pm :
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
kit89@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:49 pm :
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:18 pm :
kit89 wrote:
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
Dinky@Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:09 am :
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:06 am :
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Tron@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:05 am :
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:26 am :
Tron wrote:
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:08 am :
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Tron@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:09 am :
Doom3world • View topic - Aurra Sing
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4943 Location: UK, York
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4943 Location: UK, York
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 971 Location: milton keynes, england
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Last edited by kit89 on Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Still WIP!
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:45 am :
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:05 am :
wow, that's looking considerably better then the lower poly versions, although they were good
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:40 am :
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:58 am :
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
modern@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:11 pm :
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:59 pm :
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:07 pm :
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
kit89@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:49 pm :
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:18 pm :
kit89 wrote:
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
Dinky@Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:09 am :
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:06 am :
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Tron@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:05 am :
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:26 am :
Tron wrote:
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:08 am :
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Tron@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:09 am :
Doom3world • View topic - Aurra Sing
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4943 Location: UK, York
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:00 pm Posts: 4943 Location: UK, York
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 972 Location: milton keynes, england
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Last edited by kit89 on Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Well, now I'm working in the ultra high res version in ZBrush, about 886411 poly's. So far I've done some work on the vest area, and now I've moved to her knees and thighs (like that song ).
Still WIP ^_^.
Mostly working on anatomical structure, using female reference photos n' such. Also trying to make cloth look like cloth, I'll get more into cloth detail when I go up to 1 or 2 mill in polycount, because at that count I can use detailing alpha's for mesh modification.
UPDATE: Some more anatomical work, the upper body this time.
Still WIP!
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:45 am :
Have you had a look at still from Aliens? Ripleys character looks to have a similar feel that might work out to be useful reference material for you. failing that have a look through outdoor clothing websites/catalogues for reference to woman wearing similar clothing to see how it fits the body.
One of the tips I've come across on various 3D forums is to use z-brush only for organic shapes, everything else can be what they call 'hard modelled', so the shape of the vest would be a hard models and the folds z-brushed, that keeps the shape and general form in place of things like the jacket but allows you to add softer shapes like cloth folds.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:05 am :
wow, that's looking considerably better then the lower poly versions, although they were good
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
EDIT: Now that I look back at it, I should've added on more line on the bottum of the vest area on the High Res model. This would create a harder, more defined edge when I smoothed it. But it's really not all that big of a deal, it's not so much of a difference that I HAVE to modify that and do all my ZBrush work all over again, and it won't matter when I get it normal mapped to the low res character, it's nothing that anyone would notice. Only me... And it bothers me that I made a mistake. =/
kat@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:40 am :
I was just pointing out what some rather more experienced z-brushes tend to do, if you read that topic you linked to even he did it to an extent (although he modelled most of the cloth in zB), a few items were externally modelled and then brought into zB for further working up. But you do what you feel is right for you to get the look you're after.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:58 am :
Oh, no I agree with you there. For example, if I was looking to model a gun, I wouldn't go to ZBrush for help. Which by the way, Aurra Sing's gun won't even be going into ZBrush, that is unless I wanted to texture it, which I won't be.
With this character I was actually using it as a bit of an expirement, I never stated that really. I was trying to make the high res form with as few polygons as I could, within Maya that is. Trying to get as much detail as I could with an unusually low polycount for the character.
For example, Aurra Sing with all her little accessories hidden (pockets, guns, gun holsters, little red wrist bands, etc.) and JUST the character the polygon count is 3104.
With all the accessories shown, Aurra Sing is a polycount of 9070. I was also doing my best to model the entire character as one piece, even though of course I didn't need to. And I think I did a really nice job of getting my desired look even though I was limiting myself as much as I could.
But when you look at the jacket from Rainbow Six Vegas, obviously that's just a PIECE of the character, and he probably modeled fairly high polygon within whatever app he used (I think they used 3dsmax). For example, around the shoulder area there, he added so much detail that you're able to see the threads that connect the arm sleeves to the torso part of the jacket, all those individual ruffles were probably created by 3 polygons each. 2 polygons on the outside, then one in the middle going inward, which would create a ruffle effect similar to the one there in the model. Atleast, that's how I would do it. This would result in a LOT of poly's in the base mesh before it goes into ZBrush.
But the kind of detailing I was talking about was using Alpha maps for patterns. As in cloth patterns. In ZBrush you can use Alpha maps (white and black textures) to modify polygons. This is really useful when you're putting details like skin pours on a character, or similar to my situation, putting cloth like thingies onto a surface (real technical I know).
Anyhow, I don't look to be putting in as much detail has he did in his jacket into my character's vest. I might apply something like that when I do some texture modification in Photoshop, then add in the details using hieght maps.
modern@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:11 pm :
3ds Max 9 has been optimised for this type of workflow (and because XSI does it) where you have your low poly mesh, and on top your high poly mesh split up into "bite sized" chucks. More polys equals smaller chunks. Also, nurms subdivision within Max is a very good way of producing folds in cloth, and muscles. I did this as an art test for a studio using nurms. I haven't heared back, so I guess they didnt like it, but hopefuly it gives some indication of the power of nurms (which you can export to zbrush).
EDIT: Just noticed you are already using Sub Div in Maya? Never got to grips with subdivision surfaces in Maya, but I find Max nurms easy because you can use it on a low poly mesh, and switch it off again from the command panel.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:59 pm :
Yeah you can do the exact same thing in Maya. Nurms and Sub-Divisions are pretty much exactly the same. I created some wristbands and a bicep band (or whatever you want to call it), it's basicall just cloth wrapped around a part of her arm, on my character Aurra Sing.
I modeled it in polygons, but when I smooth it with Sub-D's or divide the mesh into a lot more poly's, you got a more cloth-like look. See:
(Polygon):
(Sub-D):
I also have a custom toolbar that I created comprised of the tools that I use most in Maya, along with a few MEL scripts that I use often-like as well.
Two of the buttons on that tool bar is Poly-to-SubD and a SubD-to-Poly button. Sub-Ds and nurms are actually really slow to render though, and to calculate as well, I prefer Polygon modeling over Sub-D any day, I just use Sub-D to see a "preview" of the smoothed model.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:07 pm :
dinky wrote:
@ratty redemption - Well for me, I'm usually equally impressed with low polygon models than I am detailed-high polygon models. This is because topology work is one of the most difficult things you have to learn as a 3d artist. And not only as a 3d artist, but as a 2d artist as well. That's generally why, people who have spent all their life sketching out characters on paper, do really well when they move into the 3d field. Because all the principles are the same. The only difference is the tools you use.
understood and good point.
we also have sub-d modeling in blender, although as you say it with your modeling apps, blender does slow down a lot when sub-d is enabled during mesh editing or rendering, but it does look really cool
modern, is that statue model one of yours? and do you have a link to the whole model?
kit89@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:49 pm :
ot* Sub-D for Blender is dependent on your graphics card and avaliable RAM, Ratty, for example I can subdivide to level 6, which is vertices: 6299648 & Faces: 6291456
Not to shabby on my old rigg(1.2Ghz Sempron, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6 6600 256MB).
Although it really is over kill, and most people for editing only need a Sub-D of level 1-2. Rendering is usually level 2.
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee joint.
Dinky@Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:18 pm :
kit89 wrote:
OnT* Not to bad although I think the legs need some work done to them, they kind of look chubby to me. Especially around the knee jont.
Well I'm glad you say that, because that's exactly the look that I was going for. Mostly because in reality, that's what's there, ESPECIALLY around the knee joint (or kneecap). That is mostly just fat there. The thigh is where the muscle is, and below the knee is muscle. But the knee area itself is mostly fat, bone and cartilage.
And when I said Sub-D's are slow, I meant that the more you modify them, the slower they are to calculate what you to do them. The only time Maya ever slows down, or is taking up a considerable amount of RAM (out of 2 gig) is when I do things like Cloth, Hair and Soft Body simulations. That also eats a lot of CPU, unfortunetly Maya 6.5 isn't designed to take full harness of the power that my Intel Core 2 Duo can produce. Maya 8.5 is said to be able to though but it's not like I'm going to upgrade my version of Maya .
Dinky@Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:09 am :
And just as an update, I'm in the middle of UV Mapping the Low Res character. After that, I am going to use the high res character to make a Normal Map (just a test normal map). I've never used Doom 3's RenderBump tool, and I only know what I've read about it from modwiki and some other tutorials. So if anyone has any advice to pass to me, I'd appreciate it.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:06 am :
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
Tron@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:05 am :
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:26 am :
Tron wrote:
Dinky wrote:
Well, Doom 3's RenderBump did not work. So Kat suggested I used this program, XNormals. And it worked GREAT, and I created a test normal map for my character, and put it in the material file for Aurra.
But now Aurra looks like crap because for some reason she's got SelfShadows on. Even though I put "noSelfShadow" in the .mtr file. But besides that, I can see that the normal map is on the character properly. Now I've just got to figure out why noSelfShadow isn't working.
How have you got the model ingame, just as a func_static model at the moment? If so that's probably why, noshadow materials seem to behave weirdly on func_statics, for the moment just make sure the no shadows parameter of that is set.
I should've edited my post. I fixed my problem. It turns out D3 was going to my Materials folder instead of the pk4 that I was trying to make for updates.
But now I've got a much larger problem, which doesn't have to do with D3. But I'm not sure if Doom 3 is having the same problem as Maya is having. My UV Map is still WIP, but it is definetly suitable for texturing, that is except for the head uv map because I rushed it so I could try and get a test texture in-game. But for some reason in Maya when I apply the bump map, it's just ALL over the place with all these weird dimples n' stuff. From what I am able to see, it doesn't look like this in Doom 3, so it might just be a Maya problem which is very likely, but it's driving me nutzo. I'm going to try a few things in Maya and D3 to see what the problem is.
Dinky@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:08 am :
I'm having too much trouble with creating a satisfactory normal map. Doom 3's Renderbump just doesn't for me on the many levels that I've tried, and every other way I know to transfer high polygon geometry surface information to seperate low polygon model has either 1) Failed. Or 2) Brought me a normal map, but when applied to the character, it had all kinds of crazy artifacts/weirdness on it.
I'm not going to quit trying to get this model in-game, but it has slowed me down. I mean, it's like I was driving like 60 MPH down the road in my char, and suddenly there was a sign that said "SHOOL ZONE; 25 MPH". I'll be messing with it on and off, but I think I'll be spending more time on creating some 3d characters that I've been wanting to make (not for game engine).
Oh well, /shrug. If you have anything to add please post here, or if you think you could help me then it would please me very much so if you posted here with your advice/questions.
Tron@Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:09 am :
How about you give us more information, post a screenshot of exactly how the normal map isn't appearing right? It's likely just some simple error so should be easy to fix, unless you are doing something totally wrong in regards to the model.
I've used the RenderBump feature before and it worked fine.
Rayne@Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:00 pm Post subject: :
When your normal map looks inverted you have to invert the Green channel of your normal map image. Just open it in photoshop, select the green channel and press Ctrl + I .
Sometimes you have to invert the red channel (if I remeber correctly), but the point is: every program creates normal maps in its own way, so you have to know which type of normal map your engine likes.
Let's do some examples:
DooM3 uses the sometimes called "ATi style normal maps", which have the green channel inverted in respect of Maya and Max normal maps.
Basically, to use a DooM3 created normal map in Maya, you have to invert the green channel of the image. Same thing, if you create a normal map in Maya, to use it in DooM3, you have to invert the green channel.
With this small info, it's really easy to work with normals: whatever your engine is, if your normal map looks inverted just open it in photoshop
But, that's not enough: You are using XNormal, and that's the best choice you can do with the hassle of creating normal maps: quick, simple to use, and it creates the best normal maps (it's second only to DooM integrated renderbump). In XNormal (like in Zbrush) you can choose, in the normal map tab, which channel you want inverted or not in your image file.
Ps: the problem in your last post seems like a UV problem; may you post your uv layout? _________________ theRev is coming...
obihb@Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:46 pm Post subject: :
Renderbump is not too difficult to use, once you get how it works.
I haven't used it for a very long time but here is as I remember it. If I miss something, I'm sorry in advance. But this should be pretty much how it works.
Export both low and high poly to .ase or .lwo file. They must occupy the same space. You must export normals and UV info. Although UV is only used for the low poly.
Put both exported models in base/models
This location is not mandatory, so feel free to use your own location.
Make sure you have a Doom material that actually works for the low poly model. If the material does not work the renderbump will not work.
... to your material. This is the info to create the proper normal map and reference the high poly model.
I recommend to run Doom in windowed mode before rendering the map. The size there is the size of the map it saves out. The "aa" is anti-aliasing and I'll suggest to make it 0 for testing purpose to speed it up. Once you get a good result you can push it up for final renders. The trace is the distance it will trace for high poly normals. Tweak this if you are missing some normals or get some overlaps of close geometry. The next line is the file name of the TGA it'll save and the last bit is the reference to the high poly model
So then inside Doom you bring down the console and type..
renderbump models/lowpoly.ase
This of course needs to point to your low poly model. You can use TAB to just quickly pick through. I'm sure you know the TAB shortcut in the Doom console.
So that is pretty much it.
Main things are to have proper exports. Just to be safe you can keep them scaled in game dimensions. So it's not like super huge or really tiny. And of course the material has to work. I know lots of people struggle with that, not using material names correctly and so on.
I hope this is helpful and I didn't miss something important.. _________________ Obi-Wan
modern@Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:05 am Post subject: :
Sometimes normal maps in the real-time preview in Max look fubard just like that. It can be a glitch in the preview that occurs when it does not update correctly, and can be fixed by turning the DX material preview off, and then back on. I find using DX material previews often crashes Max. It could be just as buggy in Maya. I would worry about what the normal map looks like in Doom, and dont pay too much attention to how it appears in Maya. _________________ http://creativecommons.org/
.
).
.
.
).
.
.
).
.
).
.
.
).
.
.
).
.
).
Co-Admin
.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
